 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Questions & Answers About Wind farms,
Wildlife and Global Warming |
Do you think that global warming is a problem?
Most legitimate scientists agree that the earth's temperature will continue to rise as emissions known as "greenhouse gasses" are produced and change the way that heat is received and stored on earth. As a result, weather patterns become unstable and ice at the poles begins to melt, eventually flooding coastal areas, changing the salinity of the ocean and disrupting food chains as the ocean temperature is changed.
How can we slow or stop the trend toward global warming?
Greenhouse gasses are produced by emissions from automobiles and any other source that relies on burning fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and gas) to generate energy. Supporting development of alternative, renewable energy such as solar and wind energy is important. Other essential actions we can take include switching to more fuel efficient cars, requiring strict pollution standards and conserving energy in our daily lives.
So if a wind energy plant is proposed, wouldn't it automatically deserve our support?
Yes and no. Using energy harnessed from the wind is an important way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for electrical energy. But as these facilities are proposed, it is important to choose locations that not only provide optimum wind but also minimize risk to resident wildlife and their habitats. We should support facilities that are sited in locations that minimize risk, and we should question, or even oppose, those that are proposed for particularly sensitive habitats or that could harm fragile species of wildlife.
How can a wind energy plant put wildlife and habitat at risk?
Because offshore wind energy is relatively new, we still have many questions that need to be answered about the degree of risk that they may pose to sensitive species or habitats. We know that some land based facilities have been more harmful to wildlife than others. The key to reducing risk is knowing which areas are less likely to result in conflicts with wildlife. All areas of the ocean are not equally useful habitat. For example, migrating birds tend to rest only in areas with particular characteristics, and migratory whales tend to rely on the same coastal corridors each year. Placing a wind energy plant in these areas may force animals to adjust migratory routes to less desirable areas and place species at risk. The anchoring used for wind turbines also changes the flow of sand on the bottom, scouring some areas and depositing sand in others. This changes the suitability of habitat for fish and other animals living or feeding on the bottom. The turbine blades, which are several hundred feet in diameter, may pose a risk to sea ducks and other birds that rest in areas just beneath turbines, and small migratory birds and bats flying through an area. In some poorly sited land based facilities, these deaths number in the thousands each year.
But aren't more birds killed flying into windows and radio towers than would be killed by hitting turbine blades?
Yes. But that argument misses some key points. Because it's difficult to predict when endangered species will become irreversibly imperiled, killing even a few birds can be devastating to some populations. But animals deserve our consideration even if their species is numerous. If we choose areas for wind farms that pose the least risk to migratory or seasonally resident birds, then we can avoid adding even more deaths to the already large numbers of birds being killed. Again, some coastal areas are heavily used by marine wildlife and others are not as essential. Proper environmental review and appropriate siting assure that we are not adding to the risks already faced by coastal birds, some of which are members of endangered species.
How do we know which areas are the best for wind energy plants?
Developers need sites that have reliably strong winds and that are close to on-shore power grids or ports to which the energy they are generating must go. It is also important to bring together experts on marine mammals, birds, endangered sea turtles and fish to help identify areas that are of particular importance to these species. The government can then help direct developers to areas that are likely to pose the least risk. Right now, the Army Corps of Engineers, which is overseeing offshore wind plant permitting, has not attempted to do this. As a result, developers propose a site based on their needs for efficient generation and transmission of energy, and environmental assessments are done after the fact. So a developer may waste time and resources trying to get a permit for an area that, in the end, may be deemed environmentally unsound. It is an example of the old saying "putting the cart before the horse." The need for clean and safe habitat should be driving the process, not simply dealt with as an afterthought.
What can be learned from marine based wind plants in Europe about wildlife impacts?
European wind plants are located in areas that lack some of the wildlife species that might be at greatest risk from energy facilities, such as migrating songbirds and endangered large marine mammals. Additionally, turbines at European wind plants are smaller turbines than those proposed for the US and none of the sites is as large as any proposed here. Information gathered there can help inform us, but significant differences in size of the wind plants and in the habitat use of the area by marine animals and birds means that we still need to do meaningful assessments of habitat use of particular marine habitats, and what risks may be posed.
Cape Wind wants to develop a wind energy plant in Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts. Is that a good place for it?
That's hard to say. A number of wildlife concerns have been raised. When it was first proposed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife made very specific recommendations for studies they felt were necessary to answer their concerns about potential impacts on birds. More than two years later, the developer still hasn't conducted the recommended studies. The Army Corps has required that the developer provide an Environmental Impact Statement. When it's released we can look at the studies that have been done to see if they are adequate to justify the conclusions that were reached. Then we can decide whether this is an appropriate location. For more information contact: Sharon Young at The Humane Society of the United States at: (508)833-0181 and visit Safewind.info |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enter your email address
for timely updates!
|
|
 |
|
