Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought

Red Kite at Navarre Windfarm

Red kite agonizing under wind turbine, Spain.
Courtesy of association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre.

Wind turbines are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually

The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).

By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030. This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.

Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually. This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California’s GE population is stable is but a white-wash.

Beheaded Golden Eagle from Altamont Pass-  Courtesy of Darryl Miller, California

Beheaded Golden Eagle from Altamont Pass- Courtesy of Darryl Miller, California

Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.

In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.

Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!

However, this carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.

Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand has documented how areas searched under wind turbines are still confined to 200-foot radiuses, even though modern monster turbines catapult 80% of bird and bat carcasses much further. Windfarm owners, operating under voluntary (!) USFWS guidelines, commission studies that search much-too-small areas, look only once every 30-90 days, ensuring that scavengers remove most carcasses, and ignore wounded birds that happen to be found within search perimeters.

These research protocols are designed to guarantee extremely low mortality statistics, hiding the true death tolls – and the USFWS seems inclined to let the deception continue. In addition, bird mortality data are now considered to be the property of windfarm owners, which means the public no longer has a right to know.

Nevertheless, news has leaked that eagles are being hacked to death all across America. This is hardly surprising, as raptors are attracted to wind turbines. They perch on them to rest or scan for prey. They come because turbines are often built in habitats that have abundant food (live or carrion) and good winds for gliding.

Griffon Vultures – courtesy of the association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre, Spain
Griffon Vultures – courtesy of the association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre, Spain

Save the Eagles International (STEI) has posted photographs of raptors perched on nacelles or nonmoving blades , and ospreys building a nest on a decommissioned turbine. Moving blades don’t deter them either: videos show a turkey vulture perched on the hub of a spinning turbine, and a griffon vulture being struck. Birds perceive areas traveled by spinning blades as open space, unaware that blade tips are moving at up to 180 mph. Many are focused on prey. These factors make wind turbines “ecological death traps,” wherever they are located.

By 2030, the United States plans to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. That’s nearly six times as much as today, from three or four times as many turbines, striking more flying creatures due to their bigger size (even the mendacious study predicting 1.4 million bird kills recognizes this). Using the higher but still underestimated level of mortality published by Smallwood in 2013, by 2030 our wind turbines would be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually.

But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.

This carnage includes protected species that cars and cats rarely kill: eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, condors, whooping cranes, geese, bats and many others. The raptor slaughter will cause rodent populations to soar. Butchery of bats, already being decimated by White Nose Syndrome, will hammer agriculture and forestry.

Griffon Vultures, Spain

Griffon Vultures, Spain. Close up. Click to enlarge.


The U.S. Geological Survey says the value of pest-control services to US agriculture provided by bats ranges from $3.7 billion to as much as $53 billion yearly. These chiropters also control forest pests and serve as pollinators. A Swedish study documents their attraction from as far as nine miles away to insects that swarm around wind turbines. Hence the slaughter.

Wind lobbyists claim they need “regulatory certainty.” However, eagle “take” permits will also ensure extinction certainty – and ecological, agricultural, economic, social and health disasters that we cannot afford.

Note 1: our entire webpage was destroyed. We are reconstructing it. Given time, we will put back all the articles with all the links to reference material. If you need some urgently, please advise:
Note 2: all comentaries were also wiped out. We explain that in the comentary below.

135 Responses to “Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought”

  • We are sorry. All previous comments to this article – there were many – have been lost. The webpage itself had been lost as well, and we are trying to reconstruct it. It will take some time before all the articles, and all the links to reference material, are back in place. In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact us should you need evidence documenting what we say,

  • Shawnee:

    This must be stopped. what gives humans the right to put obstacles in our animals , birds way that can kill them that’s horrible.

    • Check out how mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed over one-half million acres of forest habitat, AND has buried over 2,000 miles of headwater streams.

      I advise anyone to take these wind turbine-related death studies with the proverbial grain of salt, but to also understand the immense loss to wildlife AND to humanity by allowing the coal industry (as well as other fossil fuel and the nuclear industry to simply exist.

      You’ll realize it comes back to the old line, “Figures don’t lie,but liars always figure.”

      Yes, wind turbines HAVE killed birds, but newer wind farms are sited to help avoid that. Hundreds of thousands of real human beings have been killed outright by coal barons or slowly by coal-fired electrical generating stations (death machines is a more accurate term).

      Fossil and nuclear industries and their bought-off friends in government have waged war on nature and humanity, and continue to do so because of the bastards and the gutless in “public” positions.” Look at the WHOLE picture. Please don’t cherry-pick.

      • You wrote: “newer wind farms are sited to help avoid that”.
        Not true. Environmental Impact Reports are commissioned by the promoters themselves, and THEY call the tune – i.e. they pick the most complacent consultants, those who will ALWAYS say that the wind farm is well-sited no matter what. I could give you a few names….

        Regarding fossil fuels: the flaw in your reasoning is that wind farms produce intermittent energy, and that there is no storage capacity for such a large amount of electricity. This means that fossil fuel power plants must be kept spinning in back up 24/7, burning fuel for nothing. And when the wind slacks, they must be ramped up, burning plenty of fuel as when a car accelerates. At the end of the day, counting as well the EXTRA energy used to manufacture this EXTRA generating capacity, wind farms cause MORE fossil fuels to be consumed than if they did not exist.

        The problem with greenies is that they don’t do their homework.

        • Paul:

          Um, there are absolutely storage solutions available for wind power.

          Batteries continue to get better all the time, and even simpler solutions such as hydro power from an enclosed system where the wind (when it’s blowing) is used to pump water into storage reservoirs at the top of a hill or mountain or storage tank, and then when there’s demand for power but no wind, the water is drained down to a bottom storage space and hydro power is generated from the falling water.

          And fossil fuel plants used for supplemental or backup power do NOT “keep spinning in the background” burning fossil fuels. That’s simply false; as loads rise or fall, the amount of fuel they burn also rises and falls as needed. Additionally, there’s not an “acceleration” issue; fossil fuel power plants can ramp up pretty quickly in terms of load supplied.

          The reality is that almost every bit of power generated from wind, solar, nuclear, or hydro is less power that we need to get from fossil fuels. That’s why the amount of fossil fuels used goes DOWN in nations as they ramp up and build more and more renewable power sources.

          All of this isn’t to deny the damage to birds that wind plants might cause- but it’s not realistic to pretend that they’re 100% evil and don’t help with the carbon problem. If we have to trade off some bird population losses for saving the planet overall, that’s a decent trade to make. They’re much more likely to go extinct from runaway climate change than they are from wind farms.

          • “Runaway climate change”? How come wind farm advocates are no longer talking about runaway global warming? Looks like the IPCC was wrong predicting global warming.
            In fact, government-paid scientists keep falsifying climate data:

            There is also dishonesty in your comment on batteries and storage reservoirs: both have very limited applications, and 99% of all wind farms are not backed up by batteries or reservoirs.

            The rest of your comments is pure obfuscation.

            About your last paragraph I have this to say: wind turbines are ineffective, immensely costly, destructive of biodiversity, and causing grave health problems among neighbors that are sensitive to infrasound. They are USELESS and HARMFUL, and should be scrapped.

          • Really? Batteries. Just what happens to these large batteries when they go bad. Put them in the dump I guess or burn them. Gee that’s really green. These storage sites are huge and with take a lot of rare earth materials to build. Wind is not the answer.

          • In fact, a few years ago, a battery the size of a trailer installed next to a wind turbine on Hawaï to store its intermittent energy caught fire by itself and burned to the ground.
            End of batteries for industrial-size wind turbines.

        • Jarl Thomas:

          I’m reading a lot of whining but not any suggestions for solutions.
          Good, bad or indifferent at least offer up something!

          • Wind farms destroy nature but won’t save the planet, because they are intermittent, and can’t replace fossil fuels. They are a remedy that is worse than the illness.
            The solution? – Stop building windfarms, don’t renew the subsidies (or tax credits), and spend the money instead on research. There are real, efficient solutions being developped..

          • Daniel Mannix:

            Get rid of the wind farms.

        • Coal powered generation is dying under price pressure from gas and renewables. If gas turbines are used for backup, startup time is about 30 min from dead stop, less from a low load situation where fuel consumption and emissions are low, less for combustion systems. Nuclear can also load follow as can hydro.

          In short, a) companies which produce equipment for power plants are well aware of the need to be able to load follow and have solutions to the problem b) to a large extent networks extending over large distances minimize the need for backing up wind and solar c) you are wrong.

          • Not so. Germany has built lots of coal power stations to replace nuclear. Why? Because intermittent wind farms can’t replace anything: they would cause black outs every time the wind abates.
            Angela Merkel will now ditch 6000 MW of windpower because intermittence is causing havoc on their grid. Watch the wind energy scam fall apart in the not distant future.

          • Replies to:
            a) – Being well aware of a problem does not mean the problem is solved. You still have to backup wind farms’ intermittency. So you need two generating systems instead of one, and you don’t save on CO2. You pay a lot more for your electricity for nothing.
            b) – There are several electricity networks in the US, and they are not interconnected.
            c) – Nope!

  • Jeff Coley:

    I propose Operation Don Quixote – the removal of all windfarms.

    These boondoggles cost far more than they’ll ever produce, and for soaking the taxpayers and diverting funds into the pockets of the uber-rich politically connected cronies these Cuisinarts in the sky are making mincemeat of Mother Earth’s precious living creatures.

    This money could be better spent on schools and feeding the hungry.

    Seriously – if an oil rig killed this many birds the site would be shut down, there would be massive fines, and the executives and managers would be looking at jail time.

    • Ben:

      “These boondoggles cost far more than they’ll ever produce” – WRONG

      “..for soaking the taxpayers and diverting funds into the pockets of the uber-rich politically connected cronies – WRONG unless you exclude the fact that oil companies exist.

      “..if an oil rig killed this many birds the site would be shut down, there would be massive fines, and the executives and managers would be looking at jail time.” – HAHAHAHA, sure! Oil executives getting jail time. *Cough* Deep Water Horizon *Cough* Waste water from fracking sites *Cough* Any site in North Dakota. *Cough* No criminal charges above petty fines…

      Also, despite oil companies being the largest businesses in the world they still accept subsidies from the government…much more than wind turbine subsidies.

      You might be wondering why I’m coughing so much. It’s because of the polluted air that I’m breathing in. Although it’s not great for me, it’ even worse for small birds with smaller lungs.
      So, instead of using wind energy and trying to find a way to make birds avoid the blades, or using newer designs that are safe for birds lets just get rid of all wind turbines an let the wildlife suffocate like the rest of us. Either that or we can just destroy their habitats like usual. Or we could hunt animals with lead bullets so that when a birds eats the meat on the carcass they die from lead poisoning. Cats kill an estimated 2.4 billion birds each year (1000′s more than the highest estimate of wind mill related deaths), lets kill all of the cats! Skyscrapers in particular, but also any glass windows cause more bird death than wind mills by a significant margin as well. Lets ban glass.

      It’s amazing how so few people cared about birds but suddenly a few deaths are being caused by renewable energy wind mills and suddenly they are public enemy number 1. If you are genuinely interested in saving birds there are several big fights you have to win first. Cats, skyscrapers, electricity lines, lead poisoning and others all cause far more deaths than wind mills. If you still think wind mills are the worst then I’m afraid your bias is showing and it smells a bit oily.

      • Matt:

        But you’re alive.

        • You are correct. In 2010, the exploding oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed twelve employees, and poisoned our resources severely. Who went to prison over THAT/ Uh, no one, because the tail is wagging the dog, and because the fossil and nuclear industries and their bribed friends in “public” service have seen to it that crime continues to pay.

          • I refer you guys to my earlier comment where I invite you to do your homework. As I explained, wind farms do NOT reduce emissions of CO2 – or of pollutants. On the contrary. You´ll keep coughing due to the pollutants even if you build millions of wind turbines, killing all the birds and making life miserable for country people who will have to find sleep in their vicinity (the problem of infrasound emitted by these monsters).
            So, once more I say: do your homework.

      • Ken:

        I hope you don’t think your cough is caused by CO2, because on average, the concentration of CO2 in your lungs is 44,000 parts per million, aver 100 times the concentration in the atmosphere. You must be suffering from something else because CO2 is not a pollutant. It is absolutely essential to life on earth.

        • Isn't it scary in this country that – the party – is more important than country? Maybe it has always been that way but it is sure more obvious now. I think they all know the truth. And if they have sold us out on this one th…gnijust think of everything else we've been sold out on over the years.

        • Fiona Updyke:

          CO2 is a Global Warming agent.

      • lee:

        Have you ever flown over pristine mountains admiring their raw beauty? … And then flown over them again three years later only to see the sight destroyed by a porcupine field of wind turbines?

        The new design of nuclear power provides 100 times more power on a ridiculously smaller footprint than any wind farm. With “recyclable” fuel which when finished burning leaves a waste package about 1/10 (or smaller) the size of just one monster turbine.
        And ultimately, cheaper. But it is not backed by Hollywood, or “progressive” politics, and the environmentalists’ arguments against nuclear power are so outdated it is obvious they are still basing their arguments on data they had wrong even at the time of Three Mile Island.

    • Jeff Marks:

      Mark, you are absolutely correct when you say wind turbines don’t reduce pollutants and emissions. They don’t take them in and push out clean air. They do produce energy however which I guess is good but so do coal power plant. Then again coal power plants do produce pollutants and emissions and since coal power plants in some places are slowly being replaced by wind turbines I guess they do reduce emissions in the whole equation of things. Oh well, lets just hope we don’t die from some dreaded lurgy from pollution

      • Jeff, you wrote: “coal power plants in some places are slowly being replaced by wind turbines”
        Not true, unfortunately. They are being replaced by gas-power plants. Intermittent wind turbines could not operate without the back up of either,

      • Wind turbines don’t REPLACE fossil fuel power plants. They are needed when there is nowind. So you need TWO GENERATING SYSTEMS INSTEAD OF ONE. It’s a big cost, and as much CO2 is emitted anyway.

  • Joyce Hodges:

    Why cant they build the wind mills enclosed in a cage like a fan? STOP THE KILLING OF ALL THESE BIRDS!!

    • RNinMontana:

      Because the birds aren’t in danger of sticking their fingers in the “fan” dearie. More surface mass would kill more birds, not fewer.

      Also, the fact remains, more birds die from collisions with tall buildings, windows, cars and power lines than wind turbines. Let’s keep the wind farms and save more HUMAN lives from respiratory disease caused by exposure to fossil fuel emissions.

      • Another greenie, another person who did not do his/her homework. If he/she had, he/she would know that wind farms do NOT save on emissions. I explain why in an earlier comment above.

        • You would also be wrong

          “Researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.”

          In terms of the emissions from manufacture of the wind turbines, once we have gone to a fossil fuel free situation, that plunges even further to zilch

  • Kath:

    Ssh, don’t tell the Greenies who believe fudged figures.

    • Okay schmuck, keep believing Fox Spews and similar bullshit from those being paid off by the dirty energy industries. If you don’t care to believe what the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are doing to our land, air, water, human health, AND how much they’re stealing in subsidies from taxpayers like me and (presumably) you every year, then you’ve lost the ability to think for yourself. That’s why these industries and the folks at Fox love folks like you.

      • Quite the opposite! Greenies don’t think for themselves. They groupthink.
        People who think for themselves promptly find out that wind turbines DON’T SAVE ON POLLUTANTS.
        I explain why in an earlier comment.

        By “subsidies to coal or nuclear”, you mean the external costs (cost of cleaning the air from coal particles, or of burying nuclear waste). Yet you don’t include in the subsidies to Big Wind the cost of removing the wind turbines at the end of their short lives, AND their concrete bases (which in fact will NEVER be removed because of the cost).

        In the meantime, the price of electricity is going through the roof in Europe because of DIRECT subsidies to renewable energies. Check the graph here:

        Do you want the US industry to die, and millions of jobs to go to China, India etc.? (as happens in Europe?)

        • Geof:

          What amuses me is the lovely idea that oil executives are rotten mean dirty people but wind power execs are pure as the driven snow and are only doing what’s right for humanity. Who really believes that?

      • greg:

        wind and solar receive more subsidies than fossil fuel or nuclear…. talking about taxpayer support there to keep your energy bill looking cheap…just paying for the higher cost in a hidden way…

      • Paul Sheldon:

        CBS is NOT “FOX NEWS” Nor is it (what some call) “right wing fringe” news.

  • They want to put a wind farm off of our beach,Ocean City,Md,the company is sugar coating the situation ,by saying its going to help us ,Well all of the electric will go to WESTERN ,MARYLAND ,the jobs? ,they are bringing their own people ,the view, up to 700 turbines 10 miles off the beach , hundreds of feet high ,people dont understand we can see 30 nautical miles ,Ocean City is the WHITE MARLIN capital of the word ,we have a huge sports fishing industry ,this is going to keep people from fishing in these areas ,commercial and sport,WERE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT HERE.Last …..the migratory birds…

  • Connie Qualey ( ConiKat):

    My God, what next? In Colorado they’ve just sizeably increased the number of Cougars ( mountain lions) that can be killed via hunting to ” save the deer”? My property is overrun with deer! Where is this shortage? I doubt this piece of bs. We are already losing the very necessary Bees, do we need to kill off every other living thing on the planet?
    Is nothing sacred in the pursuit of more wealth? Are humans the only thing allowed to live on the planet? They were
    here long before we showed up. This world belongs to them too. This slaughter must stop! Does anyone else remember ” Silent Spring”? It may be coming sooner than anyone thinks.

  • Cheri Brink:

    Where’s the petition to put a stop to this??? This is despicable! NO ONE should be allowed to kill our National bird for any reason or millions of other birds either a year for the sake of a few dollars on energy that doesn’t work anyway. Stop these asshats from killing our national birds!

    • Jeff Marks:

      Then remove your skyscrapers, power-lines and cars too because they contribute just as much or more

      • Cars and skyscrapers are useful. Wind farms are not: they produce highly variable amounts of electricity which must be compensated by fossil fuel power plants ramping their own production up and down, producing more harmful emissions in the process. The net effect is:
        -zero effect on climate
        - zero effect on pollution
        -expensive electricity bills (to pay for the subsidies)
        - millions of dead birds and bats, extinction of some species
        - neighbors who can’t sleep and die young.
        - destroyed landscapes, property values and tourism resources.
        - thousands of jobs lost due to higher electricity prices. In Spain, a study concluded: 2,2 jobs lost for one created by the wind industry.

        • Bob:

          OH MY GOD! Most wind farms are built in land that is not being used for anything else, but if it is built on private land, it is consensual by the owner. Also, the wind turbines are backed up by solar, geothermal, hydro, and the extra energy are stored in batteries, which are getting more advanced. Companies like Tesla are making batteries that they are giving free to international governments. Sure, there are always going to be carbon emissions, but these give off less pollution compared to fossil fuels. ALSO, coal plants destroy habitats, and destroy ecosystems altogether. Also, the governments that make people pay for subsidies are governments that are most possibly in debt, and many government in surplus can fund without making people pay for it. sticking with coal makes it worse for people, period.

  • Lynette Laguna:

    Solar energy and geothermal are safer for wildlife. Energy from wind is another way to make money regardless of the cost to wildlife. Greed does not discriminate between what is right and what is wrong. It is only profit above all else.

    • ken:

      true if you can afford the 30k in solar panels or the 50 k for geothermal to power your house. green energy is such a scam.

    • Paul Sheldon:

      Solar Energy fries birds, (at least when it’s in the form of huge solar installations), apparently due to something called “the lake effect” birds fly over the solar mirrors and get fried.

  • Conrad:

    I was just driving past a wind farm and I noticed that flocks of birds were flying under the range of the blades. I was intrigued to see this.

    This site is such a transparent attempt by the big oil industry to dissuade us from making their toxic product obsolete. How many birds (fish, seals, and ocean life) does a single oil-spill kill? How many species of frog, and coral reefs are being driven to extinction by warming? 100 times more birds and bats are killed by house cats than wind farms.

    I would suggest oil companies invest in wind farms to stay relevant and on the right side of the moral equation.

    • Hi Conrad,

      Oil industry behind this site? I wish!
      - What about taxpayers’ dollars behind Big Wind, behind mendacious “studies” on birds and wind farms, behind countless websites on useless intermittent energy like wind and solar?

      Extinction of species due to man-made global warming?
      - What warming? Watch the world turn colder as the weak 24th solar cycle causes temperatures to drop. The sun, not CO2, is the driver of climate. Billions of dollars spent on rigged climate science can’t “hide the decline”.

      Oil spills?
      - Intermittent wind energy can’t replace a single conventional energy power plant, let alone fuel cars, trucks and ships. Oil production will keep increasing no matter how many millions of wind turbines we will put up, which ruin the world in several ways. Wind turbine supporters don’t understand the first thing about the effects of intermittent energy on electricity frequencies.

      Cats kill more birds than wind turbines?
      - Cats don’t kill eagles, condors, whooping cranes, hawks, falcons, geese, swans, ducks, etc. Wind turbines do.

      Big Wind on the right side of the moral equation?
      - That’s a laugh! Wind energy is obsolete because of its intermittency, a problem that remains unsolved in spite of 30 years trying. Yet corruption keeps the gravy train of subsidies flowing towards that form of energy, which only works for sail boats because they have engines to help when the wind fails. In the case of wind turbines, those back up engines (gas power plants) use more fuel to regulate the energy produced by the erratic wind than they would supplying the grid on their own. Therefore wind farms, dear Conrad, are USELESS. They are a swindle kept alive by corruption. See:

      • Ben:

        Look at Germany. They get over 30% of their power from wind turbines. Wind isn’t actually as unreliable as people think and the energy can be buffered in large reservoirs if too much is created or to be used when there isn’t enough wind. Wind doesn’t just suddenly appear and disappear. It follows known rules which allow us to predict, which reasonable accuracy, how much power is going to be generated at each wind turbine.
        In regards to this point, it’s amazing that a country as large as Germany has been able to successfully run this type of system for many years if wind turbines where, as you say, useless. The problems caused by intermittent power provided by wind turbines isn’t a big deal to a country that is technically qualified to handle it, like Germany. If you think Americans would be unable to do the same thing I can only assume that you think that Americans are not skilled enough.

        If you only care about the big birds then you’ll have to get rid of electricity power lines and hunting, specifically with lead bullets and also get rid of DDT in Mexico. If you can get rid of both of those then you can keep using Oil for a time. However, climate change will probably affect the habitats of the big birds more than they can adapt. Also, while cats don’t leaps hundreds of meters into the air to catch migrating eagles, they do eat/murder 2.4 million birds and 12 billion mammals each year. This means that those big birds have less to eat, and they can’t feed their young, so maybe you should actually care about that problem since it does actually affect the big birds.

        “What warming? Watch the world turn colder as the weak 24th solar cycle causes temperatures to drop. The sun, not CO2, is the driver of climate. Billions of dollars spent on rigged climate science can’t “hide the decline”.”

        This is the line and the one about CO2 you got most wrong in my opinion but that might just be because I’ve done more research into this subject. Despite the fact that our sun was in the lowest part of it’s cycle the climate continued to warm up. 16 of the hottest 17 years have been since 2000. The 17th one was in 1998 where the sun was at the strongest point in it’s cycle. Since the 24th solar cycle has been very weak and yet the climate has continued to warm up it clearly means that the sun isn’t the reason the earth has continued to warm up. Solar cycle 24 has had far fewer sunspots than was predicted, however, there no reason to think that this will continue. In fact, since this cycle is weak the chances that solar cycle 25 will be stronger than 24 are extremely high. For the last 8 years we’ve had a weaker than average sun and record temperatures. If the sun goes to it’s average range during the next cycle then all of those temperature records are guaranteed to be broken by even larger margins. In summary, the weak 24th cycle began in 2008 and temperatures have continued to rise and in 2/3 years the new cycle will start.

        Hide the decline refers to tree ring data. Tree rings can be used to estimate the temperature of the year since a tree grows more when it’s warm a tree ring in a warm year will be bigger, etc. This tracks very well with other techniques so scientists have a reasonable level of confidence in this technique. One group of trees followed the other groups of trees and other forms of temperature measurement until the 1980′s. At this point the tree rings stopped growing in accordance with temperature. The “hide the decline” is in reference to those tree rings. The graph showed a decline after 1980 despite the fact that actual scientific equipment showed an increase in temperature. This means that although more tests should be done to find out why these group of trees didn’t follow temperature they were outliers and the rest of the trees did. Because the scientist in question didn’t want to confuse people with a graph that showed a decline in temperature he added the real temperatures to the graph from 1980 onwards as they were recorded by scientific instruments. There was nothing insidious about it other than the fact that news organisation that should have been able to understand this, purposely pushed misinformation onto a public ill-equipped to understand it.
        In future discussions you have on this topic I would avoid mentioning “hide the decline”. It just makes you stand out as someone who hasn’t done any research on the subject even if you have.

        Finally last bit, CO2. It is in fact the main driver of our climate in the same way that arsenic would be the main driver of our deaths if we were to consume even a small amount of it. Just because something is tiny it doesn’t mean it can’t have a massive effect. Imagine a set of old measuring scales, like the scales of justice style. Now put identical weights on each side of the scale so it balances. Now add a tiny amount of weight to one side. The scales will no longer be balanced and one side will raise and the other will lower. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and although it is a tiny amount (ish) it is easily capable of disrupting the balance of our climate. We also have to worry about positive feedback and other sorts of problems that all add up to mean that CO2, although teeny and tiny, is the main driver. Also, we can’t affect the sun but we can affect CO2 so even if the Sun was the main driver, since we can’t do anything about it, we might as well move on to the second strongest driver and so on..

        • Hi Ben,

          Regarding Germany, three things must be noted:
          - They have built coal-fired power stations to balance the instability of wind-produced electricity. As a result, their CO2 emissions have gone up, not down.
          - Their electricity costs 5 times more than that produced in the US. As a result, “fuel poverty” has become a big problem for low income families; the government has to subsidize German industry so that it does not move abroad;
          and German companies now invest much more abroad than in Germany,
          - The German government is struggling with these problems, the country is going downhill very fast, but Angela Merkel continues to try and cure the country with more aspirins. It won’t work. Watch Germany get into serious trouble pretty soon.

          Regarding Global Warming: “you are wrong, moosebreath” as Johnny Carson would have said. Simply watch the world slip into global cooling mode. This has started already. It’s been colder in Moscow last week than at any time since 120 years ago. Record cold temperatures have also hit North America and much of Europe. The politically correct (mendacious) media won’t be able to keep silent about it much longer. Then you’ll hear them blame the cooling on “climate change”. – HA !!!

          • Gary Gonzalez:

            theres a difference between weather and climate. Weather is the daily temperature, it can fluctuate to each extreme rapidly whereas climate is an average of temperatures over a long period of time. You will never get an accurate reading of climate by only looking at temperature, therefore, the fact that its colder in these parts makes no difference in the overall climates. Rather, this is because of the odd weather patterns due to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. Instead of telling people to do homework, read a book that isn’t written by someone profiting from fossil fuels. Theres a good reason why 97% os scientists agree human activity is warming up our planet.

          • Gary says: “Theres a good reason why 97% of scientists agree human activity is warming up our planet.”
            97% is an exaggeration born from political agenda. Besides, what do medical research scientists, for instance, know about climate?
            Regarding climate scientists: almost all of them are financed by government grants, or work for universities receiving government grants. Their careers would be ruined if they said they didn’t believe CO2 causes global warming.

            Finally, climate scientists have been caught cooking the books many times:

          • Jay Hamilton:

            it’s not 97% of scientists it’s 97% of peer-reviewed published studies relating to climate change and the cause.

            Here is a list of bullshit websites and organisations that are funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon. Stop using these, they are poisoning your vulnerable little mind:


          • In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition burned certain books deemed to “poison the mind” (your expression). Do you intend to do the same with websites?

    • Im Me:

      Exactly, Conrad!

  • Patrick MacDonald:

    I hate birds

  • What a tragedy that we are slaughtering and making extinct so many of our own native birds. And why? So that we can fight climate change–a change in climate temperatures that may or may NOT be affected by man’s activities on this earth. We don’t really know if mankind is truly impacting the climate, but we DO know these windmills are slaughtering our national treasures of the skies. What a tradegy!!

    • Bob:

      9 out of 10 scientists agree that man-made climate change is destroying the Earth. The rest are just scientists that are funded by oil producing companies.

      • Actually, less than 30% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is destroying the Earth.
        They are the ones who make a living from governement grant money.

        • Jay Hamilton:

          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

          Can you start fact-checking yourself once in a while so that people like myself don’t have to go behind you cleaning up your mess debunking everything? Stop going to websites funded by the Kochs or others with misinformation campaigns. Unless you just enjoy repeating other people’s lies like a mindless sheep.

          • Gosh! We are lucky to have you, Mr Knowitall, providing guidance to our readers. You obviously think they are stupid, unable to distinguish between the lies of government-paid scientists and reality.

      • That’s the official version, the one politicians use to move their agenda forward, and which main stream media repeat like parrots. Less and less people believe it, though.

  • Robert Strickland:

    The environmentalist are so worried about a couple of pipelines being built that is environmental safe with the new technologies, that will create hundreds of jobs, but do they care about the birds, hell no, they want their cake and eat it too. “This carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups, and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.”

  • Kristie:

    Thank you so much for this article, I had no idea this was happening to birds across the globe! Definitely making me think twice about “renewable” energy. Many bird and bat species aren’t renewable!

    • Jeff Marks:

      Kristie, if you think this is the main cause of bird deaths you must also do some research in power-lines, skyscrapers and coal power-plants which on average kill more birds than the wind turbines

      • Two wrongs don’t make a right. Besides, more wind farms mean more deadly transmission lines as well.

      • Skyscrapers and coal power-plants don’t kill eagles, cranes, hawks, geese, falcons, swans, condors, etc.

        As for power lines, for each wind farm you need to build tens of km of new ones, increasing the death toll from these structures as well.

  • rohit:

    Has anyone tried designing the windmills to look like scarecrows? Or perhaps attach a scarecrow on one?

    Maybe that could help!

  • Michael Castillo:

    I have a different angle to consider after seeing who benefited from stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline. I now realize the same big money financial interests that back fossil fuel use are the same big money financial interests that back so called green energy. Thus they get our politicians to subsidize green energy technologies that MUST be backed up with fossil fuels and they make money on both sides of the issue with little regard for the climate or environment. If we were serious about going green we would ditch expensive, inefficient environment damaging technologies like wind turbines and solar collection plants and focus on developing hydrogen as a fuel.

  • Stacey:

    What if they were different colors or had lights to deter the birds??

  • […] By 2030, wind farms are projected to kill 1.4 million birds each year. […]

  • Spurwing Plover:

    I hope President Trump ends all financing of windfarms and wind turbines

  • Solar farms are preferable for renewable energy in every way. Instead of planting more turbines in planet earth, switch to solar. Wind farms are big money for big industry and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, in addition to adverse affects on human health and property values in many cases.

  • Thought we had reasonable solution to use less fossil fuels,so we’re still impact our ecology ,unfortunate!

  • Karen:

    In 1999 our next-door neighbor and our community association installed wind power and the electronics to benefit from it. The units had to have the blades repaired periodically to keep them usable, which was a huge ordeal….lowering the huge pole, cleaning and repairing the edges that had been damaged by birds and such hitting the blades. Because the wind is intermittent and slow and high, battery banks were required to store the electricity, which also needed to be inverted to usable voltage. The battery bank contained 16 batteries that cost $400 each and had to be completely replaced every 10 years! Talk about expensive maintenance requirement.

    A wind farm was built within a mile about 15 years later, creating a background noise the entire community must live with, and there is no benefit whatever to anyone locally–except the farmers getting paid for the land rental where the towers are built. Local electric bills are not lower. The unrestricted view of the horizon has been destroyed. The country quiet now has a reverberating background sound that is disturbing, especially in the evening.

    Driving down the Interstate, I’ve seen lots of wind farms where a big percentage of the turbines are no longer even working, leaving junked towers in their wake. How are wind farms clean and sustainable if they don’t last–especially considering their initial expense.

    This doesn’t even address the cost and maintenance of transporting wind turbine electricity to a place where it can be converted to add to an electric grid. Evidently the electricity can’t benefit locals because it’s not usable until it can be added to the grid.

    Additionally, until you have to live with it, the new, continuous, inescapable sound pollution is detrimental. Wind farms lower property values and quality of life in previously pristine, pollution-free areas.

  • […] Windfarms are basically giant bird Cuisinarts, killing many endangered species of raptors and bats. […]

  • Jim Gwiz:

    It seems everybody is dying of air pollution. Has anybody checked the EPA data lately? At least in my area (St. Louis) air pollution is at the lowest point since EPA began testing and we are in a non-attainment zone. We have one of the largest coal plants just west, south and north of the city. A full 80% of the generation is from coal. We have not had a Red Zone day in years. At most, we get a Yellow day once every 2 or 3 years. There hasn’t been an atmospheric inversion in many years. So, is it that air pollution is some kind of religious experience? I can explain why the air is cleaner than it has ever been and only the propaganda by the EPA is keeping air pollution at some fever pitch.

    • Jeff Marks:

      Jim, perhaps do some research on the prevailing winds(which often remove pollution from the area) and perhaps system changes in the area with regards to lifestyle and transport. That could be why but if you don’t think coal has had a negative effect on air quality look what happened to China.

  • […] as many birds as the British Petroleum Gulf of Mexico oil spill did. They are projected to kill 1.4 million birds annually by 2030. Research suggests Hawaii’s five major wind turbine farms are killing endangered bats about […]

  • […] to researcher Jim Wiegand, who has dedicated his life to studying the problem, the number of birds and bats killed by […]

  • […] fleeing, 2 – 4 jobs lost for every ‘green’ job created, destroyed habitats and countryside, birds and bats slaughtered, lost property values, health issues, utter civil discord among people forced […]

  • Lauren Balshaw:

    Fossil fuels… what assholes decides to go along with the asshole who decided fossil fuels was the way to go? Oh are those assholes.
    Let us sit online arguing about wind turbines and dead birds dead bats.. um .. what about dead people from oil refinery explosions? What about toxic emissions? What about tapping a source that cannot REPLENTISH … what about oil spills and dead sea life what about wars literally.. war. Death … what about fuck all this bull shit. Tap into working with natural forces.. magnetic fields , sunlight, WATER, air, storms, what about mimicking nature? What about shut up and invent a better way that doesn’t equate to the death of anything. How bout dah..?
    How about we crawl out of the box and forget the ” basics” until we discover an entirely new base to build upon..

  • What s perhaps surprising, given the amount of attention it gets, is how few birds wind turbines kill in relation to other things. The research concludes  that taken together, fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to birds than wind and nuclear power stations.

  • […] the dying birds are called “streamers,” because they emit smoke as they fall from the sky. One report estimates that over 100 golden eagles and 300 red tailed hawks are killed yearly by wind turbines […]

  • […] do wind farms, which slaughter, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of birds annually (some say millions), get counted as “environmentally friendly” and qualify for all sorts of subsidies? Why are […]

  • […] can deny anything you want but windmills kill birds. And a lot of Americans care. Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International You don't have to be a liberal to care. Facts are facts. WCON is hardly a conservative site. Tell […]

  • […] ya know. You can deny anything you want but windmills kill birds. And a lot of Americans care. Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International You don't have to be a liberal to care. Facts are facts. WCFN is hardly a conservative site. Tell […]

  • dirtysatanwhorshiper:

    I’ll riddle you something mark, what do you think is a bigger number
    300,000 or 200 million, better yet what do you think is an even bigger number than both of those
    2.4 billion. This is the number of birds that are killed by feral cats annually.
    After doing research for an enegy conversion assignment, I chose wind farming for my renewable source (don’t scofe yet) and I came to this particular website to find the negatives of wind farms. It pretty obvious to see how unnecessarily bias you are against wind farms, especially because your so proclaimed bird killers don’t even make up a single percent of annual birth deaths from human intervention. So I came to think that may you have a particular strife with wind turbines, or you just hate them for the sake of hating them. Either way, you are completely undermining what some people in this comment section are saying to you, and you feeding back to them petty claims and insults like “do your homework” when you run out of points or “wind farms are USELESS”. We build them for reasons, not because we like the look of them, And if you can’t look into that, that’s okay, I understand the loss of life in species diversity is a terrible thing. I am doing my homework, can you do you yours?

  • […] ExxonMobil was fined $600,000 in 2009 for the deaths of 85 migratory birds that landed in uncovered oilfield waste pits. Compare that $7,000 per bird assessment to the zero to minuscule fines imposed once or twice on Big Wind companies for 85,000 dead eagles and hawks, and 8.5 million sliced and diced other birds and bats, over recent years. (These are artistic license numbers, but very close to the mark.) […]

  • bird hat69er:

    another benefit? thats so coool. birds sux

  • […] ExxonMobil was fined $600,000 in 2009 for the deaths of 85 migratory birds that landed in uncovered oilfield waste pits. Compare that $7,000 per bird assessment to the zero to minuscule fines imposed once or twice on Big Wind companies for 85,000 dead eagles and hawks, and 8.5 million sliced and diced other birds and bats, over recent years. (These are artistic license numbers, but very close to the mark.) […]

  • […] ExxonMobil was fined $600,000 in 2009 for the deaths of 85 migratory birds that landed in uncovered oilfield waste pits. Compare that $7,000 per bird assessment to the zero to minuscule fines imposed once or twice on Big Wind companies for 85,000 dead eagles and hawks, and 8.5 million sliced and diced other birds and bats, over recent years. (These are artistic license numbers, but very close to the mark.) […]

  • […] Winston clicked ‘back numbers’ on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of the NY Times. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from one issue that Comrade Gore, in his speech before the election, had predicted that the North Pole would by now be ice free. As it happened, not even atomic-powered ice-breakers could make any headway in the frozen Northwest Passage. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of the comrade’s speech, in such a way as to make him predict something that had actually happened. Or again, another issue published the official forecasts of the output of wind generators in the fourth quarter of 2011. The real output was mostly birds, killed by the moving blades. […]

  • Tony:

    At the begining stages of any new system there are unforeseen consequences. A thinking human will or should be flexable enough to deal with the problems as the system is brought online. Histroy has shown hydro-electric system have killed rivers, natural habitats and fish. We didn’t tear down the dams and the losses became normalized. Nuclear power contiue to harmed or kill anything it contacts.We have had massive breakdowns costing human life and natural habitates through out the world. We do not know the true extent of damage nuclear waste will cause with its 1/2 life of some 20,000 year. Yet we continue to operate these facilities. I could write of the oil, gas, and there byproducts that are known carcinogens that contiue to slowly eat away at our quality of life and do kill Humans. Much of this goes unseen and unknow. But we all know someone effected by the diseases it causes. However as many here have alluded to, the investigator is paid in some way by the perpetrators, or those that have a vested interest in the out come of the studies.
    We only know some of the true problems (much is hidden for our eyes) with any of our energy systems of today. Many of these systems create losses that are far greater than few birds. I’m not suggesting that a few birds are of no value. But I look, as best I can, at the big picture, trying to consider all the options with an eye to leave behind something better than what I inherited while admiting I do not want to give up the life style I live. And knowing that the vested interest of the past will do all they can to hold on to the incomes streams they have become accustomed to.
    There is no easy left or right answer to what goes on in this world. If we only look at it as right or left we will not find a useful path towards the future. We do not know the true harm our present system is inflicting. But we know it is harmful to us and our children. Therefore we look for a better system that is less harmful overall. While doing so we can not forget the vested interest are the loudest but not necessarily the sanest .
    This page doesn’t seem to give any real useable information. It would be more informative to measure the cost in deaths of more than just birds.What this or that energy system looks like is important, however where is no real comparison.
    Lastly many things are not taken into consideration. Such as we use A.C. instead of D.C. to transport electricity. Is it the most economical way of transporting and storage of electricity? My understand is it’s not, however the powers at the time of it’s inception saw it as the most profitable to them. This is basicly how wind power came to be. Many windmills had been sitting at ports in New York for a few years before President Obama took office. This make it look like the power behind the enegry indurstry had been planing this for some time and waited for the tax incentives to proceed with the plan. Now that they have made their profits, I don’t think, they care one way or the other what happens as long as we fight each other they laugh all the way to their banks.

    • Your points are irrelevant, inasmuch as wind power is intermittent, therefore needs fossil fuels to back it up.
      So we’d need 2 electricity generation systems instead of one: too costly.
      In addition, backup plants would consume twice as much fuel per Kwh produced (and emit twice as much CO2) as they’d have to spend much time on standby, then ramp up and down their production when needed to compensate the vagaries of the wind.
      It’s like a car in city traffic: it spends twice as much fuel as on the highway.
      Thus, wind farms are actually redundant, useless. Like global warming, they are a scam to fleece gullible populations.

  • Spurwing Plover:

    Time to ban wind turbines and hold the wind energy wackos liable lets tear down all the wind turbines despite what the Greens and Global Warming wackos say

  • […] © […]

  • […] fleeing, 2 – 4 jobs lost for every ‘green’ job created, destroyed habitats and countryside, birds and bats slaughtered, lost property values, health issues, utter civil discord among people forced […]

  • karl:

    As the human population grows we ruin everything to sustain that very population.
    How about 0 population growth? Big business is the driving force to increase human population.
    A successful business is based on growth

  • Vince:

    The public has been duped. Wind farms and solar panel Farms literally cook the birds are destroying our beautiful Wildlife worldwide. Give me the site of a bird on the wing flying naturally or even a bat at dusk then the sound the unsteady supply of electricity and the intermittent use other forms of recyclable energy any day.
    The Sierra Club is doing a great job in keeping this quiet by paying off politicians with huge donations.

  • Spurwing Plover:

    The American Bird Conservancy sued the Dept of the Interior in 2015 to revoke a 30 year Eagle Take permit they has issued for the Wind Power Companies and that was still under Obama,i mean why should the wind turbine owners be immune

  • Cassandra Broomfield:

    Reflective paint should be applied to the propellers to deter the birds from running into the propellers since reflective items placed in the garden can help deter birds it might help here with this problem.

    • Cassandra Broomfield:

      Correction I meant to say a “shiny reflective ” but dull paint that doesn’t have a ‘mirroring’ like effect in it’s “reflective” properties.

  • […] windmills. We were thinking of investing in windmills. But we're not in favour of them, now. Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International Quote: Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously […]

  • […] two to four jobs lost for every ‘green’ job created, destroyed habitats and countryside, birds and bats slaughtered, lost property values, health issues, utter civil discord among people forced […]

  • kenya green:

    Over a million birds are killed by radio and cell towers. Where’s the boycotting of Verizon? And cats and dogs kill at least 6 million birds annually. Are we boycotting pet owners too? The percentage of birds being killed by wind turbines is minimal compared to these other instances. Conservative is key to the survival of our planet. Let’s keep a focus on more pressing issues of saving birds besides knocking down technology that is saving the world.

  • […] life. Every year across the globe, wind turbines kill millions of bats and birds, especially raptors. Wind farms can reduce air flow and agricultural production by aggravating local warming. The […]

  • Jake:

    Anyone wanna take a guess at how many birds die a year because of cell phone towers ??? Wake up people!!! If the earth becomes so hot because of fossil fuels there will not be ANY birds left! Just like in 20 years all of the reefs will be gone due to rising sea temperatures!. And it’s estimated that 50% of all species are going to be extinct in the next 100 years due to us mistreating the planet!. Plants and animals, Green technology is the only way ! We’re killing the planet going down this wreckless path and by the time everyone agrees that we need to do something it will be too late ! The Arctic circle reached a record high temperature today 84° and some might argue that it’s because of the solar flair, well let me tell you this is not the first time by a long shot that there has been a solar flair . Air contaminates and green house gas are the highest they have been in the history of mankind . Do not let big oil corporations feed you bs. About how many birds bird die from wind Mills when a estimated 5-50 million die because of cell phones! If we don’t do something that has a smaller environmental foot print there won’t be any birds or any life . Including us. Who will be able to survive on this planet

  • […] and wildlife that is the grandeur of America, including the slaughter of our nation’s bald and golden eagles. This assault must be ended, and those who promote it removed from […]

  • Darrell:

    The birds are gone. All we have are crows. And gulls. Its a bit late. Why don’t we put a screen around the blades?

  • […] media. Despite growing opposition to wind farms around the world from prominent environmentalists , wildlife groups , and concerned citizens, many people naively believe the simplistic fairytale about the benefits […]

  • […] media. Despite growing opposition to wind farms around the world from prominent environmentalists , wildlife groups , and concerned citizens, many people naively believe the simplistic fairytale about the benefits […]

  • […] of rising opposition to wind farms all over the world from outstanding environmentalists , natural world teams , and involved electorate, many of us naively consider the simplistic fairytale about some great […]

  • […] growing opposition to wind farms around the world from prominent environmentalists , wildlife groups , and concerned citizens, many people naively believe the simplistic fairytale about the […]

  • Lynn:

    The problem with much of the debate here is in “the research”. Everyone googles articles etc. to boost what they already believe to be the whole truth. To actually objectively research the issues involved you have to go through all of the actual recorded data & research studies. You have to examine all the various parameters those involved used and how all that data was compiled. So much relevance is given to various statistics, which in my experience is almost always very easy to manipulate. It is important who funds the research, but that alone should not be the only piece of information to base the study’s legitamacy on. Outcomes that look to clearly be a case of cause & effect often turn out not to be. In my experience there is always an unintended negative reaction to damn near every action we try to take in a positive direction. Our climate is changing. People can argue the reasons why until they die, but the fact is that it is changing. Anyone who is naieve enough to think that billions of humans whipping through the Earth’s resources at a rate that far exceeds her ability to replenish what can even be replenished doesn’t have a negative impact is clueless. We’ve proven we can destroy our ozone with chemicals and we can change our actions for the better. We overuse resources, we waste much of what we consume and improperly dispose of what’s left. We add poisons to the land, the water and the air every single day. We maintain our homes and cars and yet somehow think the Earth requires no such consideration. We’ll fight for the bird that we chose as a national symbol, but couldn’t care less about the sparrow. I am asking everyone to do what they can to become a part of the solution. There are pros & cons to every form of energy that we use, even wind and even ethanol. Some are clearly better options than others. We do not have an endless supply of fossil fuels even if we could make them an environmentally safe option. We are learning a lot from “greener” energy sources and advances in other technologies often come out of these efforts. There are so many people working hard to try to come up with a perfect solution that allows us the life style we’ve become accustomed to and causes the least harm to the planet and all her other inhabitants, but reality is we do not have it now. BTW- wind farms are taking major steps to address their impact on birds, bats, noise etc. They are trying to find solutions to the unintended consequences. Many are owned by local utility companies and many are not. It’s not a 1 size fits all. To all who spout they’ve done more “research” than anyone who disagrees with them has I recommend you dig even deeper & let us all know when you’ve come up with a solution to the energy problem.

  • […] a 2013 peer-reviewed study published in Wildlife Society Bulletin. Wind farms are projected to kill 1.4 million birds annually by 2030 as more turbines come online. The industry has taken steps to mitigate bird deaths, and […]

  • […] ExxonMobil was fined $600,000 in 2009 for the deaths of 85 migratory birds that landed in uncovered oilfield waste pits. Compare that $7,000 per bird assessment to the zero to minuscule fines imposed once or twice on Big Wind companies for 85,000 dead eagles and hawks, and 8.5 million sliced and diced other birds and bats, over recent years. (These are artistic license numbers, but very close to the mark.) […]

  • Read The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear by my good friend Prof. Petr Beckmann, avaliable on Amazon. Beckmann taught EE at U. Colorado at Boulder. Tony Heller is there, publishing RealClimateScience for the edification of bird killers unable to differentiate a constant.

  • […] You had no one to make the case for the ENDANGERED species killed by Wind generators, or Eagles, or the MILLIONS of other birds killed by Wind generators. […]

  • Paul Butler:

    If the money spent on wind power was put into the development of Nuclear Fusion technology the environment problem would be solved

  • Eletha L. Duffy:

    I had no idea of the devastation caused to wildlife by wind turbines. I do not believe they should operate until a design is found that protects our birds. This issue needs to come to the fore.

  • The WINDSWIMMER design will drastically reduce the environmentally-damaging effects that our present-day windfarm turbines are having.

    Bird and bat fatalities,will be greatly reduced with this new design.

    Photostrobic, infrasound, and ‘helicopter’ noises associated with high wind speeds and wind turbines, will also be eliminated.

    All of the heavy, power-producing infrastructure normally at the top of the mast, is now kept at the ground level. This makes the machinery much easier to service.

    Please, share with me your thoughts and suggestions, and feel free to share my work and promote it. Thank you.

    • This new design looks promising. We hope it will be successful, if it eliminates as planned most of the environmental impacts of currently prevailing models of wind turbines.

Leave a Reply for Jarl Thomas