A paper in the Journal For Nature Conservatism points out that the level of Red Kite deaths at wind turbines in German is very high. They estimate 308 deaths in 2012 out of 9972 individual Red Kites.
With the projected increase in wind turbines, and the fact it is young breeding pairs being killed, the whole population may be threatened.
“Mortality from collisions with increasing numbers of wind turbines is a potential hazard to raptor populations, but the actual effects on a population scale have rarely been studied based on field data. We estimated annual collision numbers for Red Kites Milvus milvus in the German federal state of Brandenburg (29,483 km2). A hierarchical model considering carcass persistence rate, searcher efficiency and the probability that a killed animal falls into a searched area was applied to results of carcass searches at 617 turbines. Collision risk varied significantly with season. The model estimated 308 (95% CrI 159–488) Red Kite fatalities at 3044 turbines operating during 2012, representing 3.1% of the estimated post-breeding population of 9972 individuals. Using the potential biological removal (PBR) method, mortality thresholds of 4.0% were obtained for migratory Red Kite populations. This level of mortality may be reached when turbine numbers increase within a few years. Since wind turbine collisions may affect Red Kites throughout the global range, a more detailed assessment of the actual impacts on populations is needed, especially because the PBR does not account for the predominance of adult birds among the collision victims.”
Yup. Thats why I call the AGW Cult a cult.
“Lord (Nigel) Lawson, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, partly lifts the veil on a curious “secret meeting” held at the House of Lords between a team from his GWPF and six scientists from the Royal Society. “
“As one present put it, “it was like talking to members of a cult”. What particularly struck the GWPF team was their opposite numbers’ refusal to discuss the policy implications of their beliefs”
This is just awful. The Wildlife Society estimates 83,000 raptor fatalities at wind farms in the USA for 2012.
“I used national averages from hundreds of carcass placement trials intended to characterize scavenger removal and searcher detection rates, and I relied on patterns of carcass distance from wind turbines to develop an adjustment for variation in maximum search radius around wind turbines mounted on various tower heights. Adjusted fatality rates correlated inversely with wind-turbine size for all raptors as a group across the United States, and for all birds as a group within the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States in 2012.”
Have you heard about the funnel effect? It appears solar plants can draw in millions of insects and fry them. And then migratory birds drop in to eat the insects and the birds then get fried too.
“USFWS also noted an issue ReWire hasn’t covered before, and we suspect it has something to do with that funnel effect: the mortality of insects. The agency says the Palen solar project may have a serious effect on insects, based on experience at BrightSource’s Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) site, now nearing completion in San Bernardino County. “Staff with the CEC reported large mortalities of insects killed during flux testing at the ISEGS site,” says USFWS. “[A]mong those documented include migratory monarch butterflies and dragonflies.”
A subsequent passage in the note on insects is an important summary of the relevance of insect mortalities to risk to other wildlife:
The ecological effects of mass insect mortalities have not been investigated
and may lead to greater levels of mortality than have been anticipated. In particular,
concentrations of insects are likely to draw insectivorous and omnivorous migratory
birds, including many raptors, which may increase the risk of bird mortalities.
If you have a facility that both attracts an entire food chain and then poses a risk of mortality or injury to individual animals at any level in that chain, then you’ve created an ecosystem-wide population sink that can metaphorically “funnel” individual animals from a wide stretch of habitat to a single spot where they meet their demise.
“Some animal rights activists are wondering just how many birds green energy may unintentionally kill as more and more birds turn up dead at solar energy facilities throughout California.
A recent article by Vice author Lex Berko notes that dead birds are being found with “singed wings” around several California solar energy facilities.
It happens that many of California’s solar plants are, the article claims, in the path of “the four major north-to-south trajectories for migratory birds” called “the Pacific Flyway.”
Birds are dying in one of two ways. In some cases, they imagine the shining solar panels to be bodies of water and dive straight into them. There they die when they smash into the panels from the sky.
Others “feel the wrath of the harnessed sunlight.” The ultra polished solar mirrors bounce sunrays strong enough to burn the feathers off birds that quickly crash to the ground, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Many of the fowl dying as a result of their unfortunate flight paths over solar facilities are birds protected by the federal government under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.“
Canada congratulated Australia.
"Ottawa, November 12 2013 — Today, Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister,
issued the following statement on behalf of the Government of Canada on Australian Prime Minister
Tony Abbott’s introduction of legislation to repeal the carbon tax:
“Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s
carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an
“Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries,
and electricity. Prime Minister Abbott has said that, in Australia, the repeal of the carbon tax
will reduce the average household’s cost of living by (in Australian dollars) $550 a year,
take $200 off household power bills and $70 off gas bills.
“Our government has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and creating Canadians
jobs – greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we’ve created 1 million net new jobs
since the recession – and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax.”"
Maybe the Prime Minister should get the f*** out of Ottawa every once in a while.
British Columbia has a carbon tax, and last time I checked, British Columbians were Canadians.
I hear there is a new explanation for The Pause in global warming. The new excuse is that a drop in CFC’s (which are a type of GHG) has saved us!
“Our statistical analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s.”
The World Meteorlogical Organization puts out a Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. Lets take a quick look at a couple of the claims.
1. “reduction in methane emissions”
Not really. One or two are down. Some have paused. Others are up.
As the WMO says “Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a potent LLGHG. It is produced by the chemical industry, mainly as an electrical insulator in power distribution equipment. Its current mole fraction is about twice the level observed in the mid-1990s (Figure 6). The stratospheric ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), together with minor halogenated gases, contribute ~12% to radiative forcing by LLGHGs. While CFCs and most halons are decreasing, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are also potent greenhouse gases, are increasing at relatively rapid rates, although they are still low in abundance”
2. “reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances”
Not really! There was a CH4 pause but it resumed rising in 2006.
3. What about N2O which contributes 6% of the radiative forcing? Nope.
Lets take a look at the over all table. I see no reduction. (I also don’t see H2O, but the AGW Cult always ignores water vapor).
It’s not really funny is it …
“BOULDER, Colo., Nov. 8 (UPI) — Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 — and possibly as many as 900,000 — bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say.
Writing in the journal BioScience, the researchers said they used sophisticated statistical techniques to infer the probable number of bat deaths at wind energy facilities from the number of dead bats found at 21 locations.”
The problem with the above article is that it probably grossly underestimates bat deaths considering the deaths of bird and bats found in Spain.
“The Spanish Ornithological Society in Madrid estimates that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 million to 18 million birds and bats annually. “A blade will cut a griffon vulture in half,” says Bechard. “I’ve seen them just decapitated.”
“Based on current technologies, higher biofuel production
necessarily means greater diversion of crops and/or cropland to
the production of fuel rather than food. The iron law of supply
and demand dictates that this would almost unavoidably
increase global food prices over what they would otherwise be.”
“Results derived from World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO)
studies suggest that for every million people living in absolute
poverty in developing countries, there are annually at least 5,270
deaths and 183,000 Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost to
disease. Combining these estimates with estimates of the
increase in poverty owing to growth in biofuels production over
2004 levels leads to the conclusion that additional biofuel
production may have resulted in at least 192,000 excess deaths
and 6.7 million additional lost DALYs in 2010. These exceed
WHO’s estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million
lost DALYs attributable to global warming.
Thus, policies intended to mitigate global warming may actually have increased death and disease in developing countries.”
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 16 Number 1 Spring 2011
( Hat tip to commenter David L Hagen from here. )
Environmentalists have kept the Keystone XL pipeline from being finished. Pipelines are the safest way to move oil to oil terminals on various costs of the USA and Canada. They are not perfect. There is some risk. But there is risk in every project.
Now oil companies are bypassing the Keystone. They are going to move the oil (in fact they are already moving the oil) via rail. Moving oil by rail is not as safe. But it is easier to add rail cars and more rail terminals than it is to get a pipeline approved.
Way to go environmental morons. (Warning. Link is to NY Times)
“Since July, plans have been announced for three large loading terminals in western Canada with the combined capacity of 350,000 barrels a day — equivalent to roughly 40 percent of the capacity of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is designed to bring oil from western Alberta to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Over all, Canada is poised to quadruple its rail-loading capacity over the next few years to as much as 900,000 barrels a day, up from 180,000 today.”
“The Canadians remain a few years behind producers in North Dakota, where the paucity of pipelines encouraged early oil explorers like EOG Resources to form a partnership with Burlington Northern Santa Fe to build terminals for the shipment of oil by rail to refineries across the country. Today more than three-quarters of North Dakota’s production, which also was to move on the Keystone XL pipeline, is transported by rail. The Canadian oil producers took notice.”