Government bureaucrats delay life-saving road projects, but let wind turbines butcher bats

English: Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) being he...
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) being held in a hand. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cut fingers, cancer, bats and birds

Guest post by Paul Driessen and James H. Rust

Georgia residents recently learned that a rare bat has stalled state highway improvements. The May 2012 sighting of an endangered Indiana brown bat in a northern Georgia tree has triggered federal regulations requiring that state road projects not “harm, kill or harass” bats.

Even the possibility of disturbing bats or their habitats would violate the act, the feds say. Therefore, $460 million in Georgia road projects have been delayed for up to eighteen months, so that “appropriate studies” can be conducted. The studies will cost $80,000 to $120,000 per project, bringing the total for all 104 road project analyses to $8-12 million, with delays adding millions more.

Bats are vital to our ecology, agriculture and health. A single colony of 150 big brown bats can consume up to 1.3 million flying insect pests per year, Dr. Justin Boyles and other scientists point out, preventing crop damage and eradicating countless mosquitoes. If Indiana bats are expanding their range from Tennessee into Georgia, that could be good news.

“White nose syndrome” is impacting populations of hibernating bats in caves all over the Eastern USA. The infectious disease is probably fungal in origin, these scientists say, and the loss of North America’s bats to WNS could cost farmers $4-53 billion per year – and let mosquitoes proliferate.

At first blush, then, the delay-and-study decision by the US and Georgia Departments of Transportation (DOT) and US Fish and Wildlife Service to protect these voracious furry flyers makes sense. (The FWS enforces the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar laws.)

However, the Georgia bat study action is akin to obsessing about a cut finger, while ignoring cancer. The schizophrenic decision underscores how environmental concerns, DOT actions and federal threats to impose penalties or withhold highway funds too often seem to reflect ideologies, agendas and politics, rather than science or actual risks of harming a species.

It’s true that Peach State highway projects could conceivably affect bat colonies or daytime rest periods for these nocturnal creatures, to some small degree. But the road work will reduce accidents and crash-related deaths – and delays will likely result in more injuries and fatalities.

Meanwhile, other human activities are decimating bat populations all over America. But environmental groups remain silent, and state and federal wildlife “guardians” do little to stop the carnage. How is that possible?

The exempted activities involve heavily subsidized wind turbines that generate expensive, intermittent electricity and require “backup” hydrocarbon-fueled power plants for some 80% of their rated or “nameplate” capacity.

A US Geological Survey report investigated the causes and consequences of bat fatalities around the world. Other analyses have addressed the violent effects that wind turbines have on bats, which are vulnerable because turbines are especially busy at night, when bats are everywhere but electricity demand is at its lowest. Bats are struck by blades traveling 100-200 mph at their tips or felled by “barotrauma,” sudden air pressure changes that explode their lungs, as explained in a 2008 Scientific American article “On a wing and low air: The surprising way wind turbines kill bats.”

Supposedly “eco-friendly” wind turbines in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands kill tens of thousands of bats annually. The Fowler Ridge and Meadow Lake facilities in northwestern Indiana already have 475 gigantic turbines on 75,000 acres; an additional 150 wind turbines are planned; and all are in the middle of prime Indiana bat habitat.

Even worse, long after the slaughter began, the USFWS is evaluating whether to grant Fowler Ridge a 22-year “incidental take” permit, so that the turbines can continue decimating bats – and the operators can continue being exempted from laws and penalties that apply to everyone else.

Of course, bats aren’t the only victims. Numerous rare, vital and endangered bird species are also at risk from wind turbines – including whooping cranes, hawks, falcons, and bald and golden eagles.

To minimize public outrage over the eco-slaughter, Fish and Wildlife has changed its census methods for “whoopers” (to make it harder to calculate how many cranes have “gone missing” along their turbine-dotted Alberta-to-Texas migratory corridor); allows wind facility operators to use search methods that ensure that most dead and injured birds (and bats) will never be found; initiated a process to issue 30-year “incidental take” permits for killing bald and golden eagles; and refused to prosecute wind facility operators for annihilating birds and bats.

The proposed New Era Wind Farm in Minnesota will likely kill 8-14 bald eagles annually. It is yet another example of serious environmental impacts overlooked in the quest to “go green” and meet state “renewable” energy mandates – as though this wildlife destruction is “sustainable” or “acceptable.”

Projects like New Era or Shepherds Flat in Oregon also mean a person could be fined or jailed for possessing a feather from a bald eagle decapitated by a wind turbine – but the turbine operator would get off scot free.

A 2012 Spanish Ornithological Society study and 1993 studies in Germany and Sweden found that a typical wind turbine kills 333-1,000 birds and bats annually in Spain, up to 309 birds per year in Germany, and as many as 895 birds and bats in Sweden. World Council for Nature chairman Mark Duchamp estimates that turbines kill twice as many bats as birds.

That means the more than 40,000 turbines operating in the United States, often in or near important habitats, could easily be killing 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year!

And yet, most environmentalist groups say nothing, and the Fish and Wildlife Service does nothing.

However, Georgia taxpayers must pay millions for bat studies – enriching researchers and reducing taxpayer wealth – to ensure that road projects do not disturb the flying mammals. Meanwhile, the state’s drivers and passengers must wait years for safety and other improvements to their highways.

Ironically, Indiana bats that are to be studied and protected in Georgia could get chopped in half en route by “Cuisinarts of the air” that Uncle Sam considers so holy the turbines must be safeguarded against endangered species laws, regardless of environmental costs.

Too many other health, environmental and economic impacts are routinely ignored by developers and regulators alike, where wind turbines (and biofuels) are concerned. That cannot continue.

As summer approaches, Americans should also consider what life will be like when windmills cause bat populations to crater. Freed of their natural predators, mosquitoes will thrive, and they have a much more unquenchable thirst for human blood than do bats of folklore and Dracula tales.

It’s high time that people’s safety – and truly devastating impacts on important bird and bat species – stopped taking a back seat to political agendas, crony corporatism and folklore environmentalism. It’s no longer acceptable to paraphrase Joseph Stalin’s obscene axiom, and say: A single bird or bat death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. James Rust is a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute (www.Heartland.org), retired professor of nuclear engineering, and outspoken critic of unnecessary alarmism over “dangerous manmade global warming.”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 8, 2013 2:12 am

Wow. I had not appreciated the damage that wind farms are doing to bat populations. It is frustrating to see the impact of “green” technology on wildlife. I guess we all like the idea of using other forms of energy but most of them seem to come with a higher price – either via subsidy or via an un-imagined impact on the environment .

Neil Robertson
April 8, 2013 2:22 am

trafamadore says:
April 7, 2013 at 4:12 pm
You people are so funny. On one hand you are complaining about highways and damn projects being put on hold because of endangered species and then you pine over bats and birds being taken out because of windmills…..And then you complain about environmentalists being as hypocritical as you.

shortly followed by

trafamadore says:
April 7, 2013 at 6:11 pm
….
The answers to these issues are complex and probably involve trade offs; reducing them to “you do this but then you do this” is for the feeble brained.

Further comment would appear to be superfluous

Vince Causey
April 8, 2013 5:54 am

Isn’t it funny that in politics, words mean the opposite of reality. Eg, Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea. Green energy is the same – an absurd oxymoron that is so outrageous that it would sit comfortably within the covers of Orwell’s 1984. In fact, I’m sure Orwell would have replaced the original Big Brother idea had he been writing in more recent times. Perhaps he would have named in 1988 (after Hansen).
In Orwell’s alternative novel, “Green” activists would be happily advocating the farming of whales – a sustainable source of “bio-oil”, just as they would be advocating ravaging the air with bird shredders, covering the land under vast swathes of sunlight robbing solar panels and ripping up rainforests to plant palm oil.
Orwell would have worked out that the conventional legal frameworks to protect the environment and wildlife would have to be subverted to allow such an outrage to occur. He may have hit upon the clever wheeze of granting “licences” to kill based on so many birds per ton of CO2 abated. As for the great masses – all they would know is they are the greenest generation ever. And as long as there is no media to challenge that lie (Press regulations act) they can continue in their blissful ignorance – much like the deluded citizens in Logan’s Run.

beng
April 8, 2013 7:13 am

****
Blade says:
April 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm
****
Blade — quite right. Very few bats are taken by cats, which is what is post is about. Birds, yes (one of my cats is a bird-expert), but I see no overall effect from it on my bird-feeder. Just as many birds as usual, and they are “smarter” & more wary as a result of my cat hanging around nearby.

Scott
April 8, 2013 9:49 am

JPS wrote:
“If a single wind turbine kills 300-1000 birds a years, and twice as many bats, the area below the wind turbine would be littered with bird and bat carcasses (carcai?). i cannot say that I have ever been at the bottom of a wind turbine and perhaps someone can lead me to pictures of this carnage, but for what it is worth color me skeptical.”
The problem is that most of these turbines are not publicly accessible. You can’t just walk up to one and start poking around. They are routinely visited by maintenance crews who also collect the carcasses. Then you also have predators who are quick to dispose of many carcasses. Once the predators become accustomed to having a regular feeding ground, they clean up the mess even faster. The combined bird/bat number of 900-3000/year averages out to 3-8/day. Between the predators and the crews, the mountain of bodies you might expect to see never has a chance to build up. Plus, many of these turbines are surrounded by grassland. Only the larger bodies (eagles, hawks, vultures) would be practical to hunt for. The rest are so small as to easily miss them.
The only way to get an accurate tally would be to have these things video monitored 24/7, and catch the killing blows. No company is going to allow that, and you can’t get close enough to the things to set up your own video monitoring.

n.n
April 8, 2013 12:14 pm

The point of this — for policy discussions — is to properly characterize each technology used for energy production. To identify its advantages and disadvantages, including its impact on the environment before manufacturing (e.g. material recovery), during manufacturing, throughout its functional lifetime (e.g. displacement), and finally to its disposal or reclamation.
The cat argument is mostly nonsense. This discussion is not about impact from natural elements of the ecosystem, but from anthropogenic effects. This may include cats by measure of their population density due to urbanization, but it does not specifically include cats, bacteria, or any other naturally occurring actor or effect.
The fact is that “green” technology is not green, even by the criteria used in marketing campaigns. It is not green when recovering materials used for development of the technology; it is not green when manufacturing the technology; it is not green while deployed and functioning; and it is not green when it is finally disposed. It has negative impacts throughout its life cycle, which are exacerbated when buffering technologies (e.g. batteries) are included to compensate for inconsistent drivers and limited operating environments.
The only part of “green” technology which is green, and renewable, is the driver (e.g. sun, wind).

hilarleo
April 8, 2013 3:47 pm

For me the scary point is that people seem to feel pet cats are a natural part of the ecology! But no pet is a “natural” resident of any ecology. Pets are a human introduction, as much as highways and windmills. And consider- some bat populations do hunt near the ground.
If we take anything away from this conversation, please spay and neuter *all* house-cats, dogs, and non-native pets: These are known drivers of extinction. Should we re-consider that? The impact is only beginning to be assessed. We’re all blind to local effects of keeping pets:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-31/national/36650863_1_outdoor-cats-feral-cat-george-h-fenwick
But the exploding numbers of our pets threaten even far-flung systems. Beyond birds, today we exploit the oceans as significant sources for commercial pet foods. All this represents a human-controlled force upon planetary ecology. We alone are responsible for the consequence of our domestic animals- even our so-called ‘independent’ cats.

Steve P
April 8, 2013 4:35 pm

Most of us who read here regularly know that wind turbines are a gigantic boondoggle long before we even get to the issue of their toll on wildlife such as birds and bats. I suspect that the low-frequency vibrations and racing shadows of the gigantic whirligigs may affect ground-dwelling creatures as well.
beng says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:13 am
****
Blade says:
April 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm
****

Blade — quite right. Very few bats are taken by cats, which is what is post is about. Birds, yes (one of my cats is a bird-expert), but I see no overall effect from it on my bird-feeder. Just as many birds as usual, and they are “smarter” & more wary as a result of my cat hanging around nearby.

Quite wrong, according to the Bat Conservation Trust:

Cat attacks are one of the most common causes of bat casualties.
Bats do have other natural predators (such as birds of prey) but cats, particularly, will learn the location of the bat roost and catch bats as they emerge.

My bold
http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/cat_attacks_on_bats_and_other_predators.html
I’m glad I found that so quickly. It was the third return on my Google search argument: bats and cats. Clever, aren’t I?
I seem to recall that some snakes somewhere also learn this trick. Sorry to be so vague, but I’m not clever enough to do a more thorough search, since the question of snakes and bats is straying a bit off the topic of wind turbines anyway, unless we are using snakes in a more figurative sense.
We don’t need the whirligigs, and I submit we really don’t need all the pet and feral cats either. If you keep cats (and/or dogs), you also share their fecal bacteria, but now I am straying off topic.
-sp

April 8, 2013 7:00 pm

Based on above comments, it appears to me that claims of the number
of birds and bats killed by wind turbines are not easy to verify.
Also, the bat claims look high to me. I have seen bats consistently
avoiding collisions with objects of all sizes, and tracking moving objects.
And, birds and bats sure seem to avoid colliding with moving airborne
things other than wind turbine blades.
So, I wonder if these claims are in the same category as the globe
warming by 6 degrees C this century, high figures for annual body count
from second smoke, and a CFL getting broken in your home requiring
people in moon suits? I suspect they are.

April 8, 2013 7:00 pm

Am I missing something here? I really don’t know if there is proof that there are thousands of bats lying dead below a wind turbine tower. Got pictures? Bats can avoid just about anything with their sonar. Why would they fly into a turbine?
And the statement: “turbines are especially busy at night”. Are you kidding? Most winds are during the day except for storms and fronts. They are driven (mostly) by the sun, not the moon. I am not sure what planet this opinion came from.
I think wind power is good in the places where it makes sense. Same with Solar. Inefficient as hell, but if it akes, sense, do it. But I am sick and tired of stupid statments about wind and solar from ignorant people who don’t have a clue.
It is as bad as telling us all the honey bees were dying because of global warming, when the problem was something totally different.
*GEEZ!!!!*

Steve P
April 9, 2013 8:23 am

Donald L. Klipstein says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm

And, birds and bats sure seem to avoid colliding with moving airborne
things other than wind turbine blades.

‘Ever hear of collisions between birds and aircraft?

Almost 75 commercial planes have hit birds this year while taking off or landing at Washington’s three major airports alone, and in more than than a dozen instances in the past five years, the aircraft have suffered major damage.

Bird-airplane collisions are up five-fold since 1990.
Mike Strong says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Am I missing something here?[…]Bats can avoid just about anything with their sonar. Why would they fly into a turbine?

Yes, you are missing something ‘here’. The turbine blades fly into the bats.

[…] this cave, close to a wind farm, houses thousands of hibernating bats during the winter. “The first year, they found 430 dead bats and I think 50 dead birds in a very preliminary sketchy study. The expert that analyzed those numbers, Dr. Tom Kunz from Boston University, estimated that finding 430 dead bats meant that actually 10,000 bats had been killed in one year,” she said.
That’s because the carcasses are scavenged by foxes, crows and other predators.

Wind Turbines Take Steep Toll On Birds And Bats
Mike Strong also said:

But I am sick and tired of stupid statments (sic) about wind and solar from ignorant people who don’t have a clue.

Do you have a specific example, other than your own?
-sp