Audublog

No, Outside Magazine, enviros aren't standing in the way of renewable energy

Online piece by the venerable adventure publication fails to see that we don't have to choose between renewable energy and wildlife protection.

The Altamont Wind Energy farm near San Francisco has created controversy over the number of birds killed by older wind turbines. After Audubon chapters pushed for improvements, newer turbines are killing fewer birds. Photo: California Energy Commission

So, sadly not surprising that the author of this positively outrageous article on Outside Magazine’s website called “How Environmentalists Get in the Way of Renewable Energy” is now finding himself battling in the comments section with climate change deniers. That’s the price one pays for talking about climate change online.

But it’s unfortunate that more commenters are taking him to task for the absurd and entirely fact-free premise that environmentalists, in their effort to protect endangered species and vital habitat, are somehow blocking the country’s move toward renewable energy. Aside from a remarkable obscure quote from Peter Kareiva, we don’t really get a quote from any of the “environmentalists” the author is railing about. In total, we get two examples of environmentalist obstruction out of what must now be thousands of upon thousands of renewable energy projects either completed or in development across the country. One of the ones cited, BrightSource’s Ivanpah solar facility in the Mojave Desert, is actually in full operation (not exactly a great example of obstruction). Even so, the author doesn’t mention that in addition to igniting birds in mid-air, the plant also isn’t producing nearly as much electricity as promised, but is actually producing greenhouse gas emissions.

But the bigger problem isn’t the facts. It’s the frame. The world has moved beyond the paradign of green vs. industry, or even the cute counterintuitive green vs. green. Audubon California and other conservation groups file comments on renewable energy projects all the time, and in nearly all instances the result is better projects with less of an impact on wildlife and habitat. A good example is the California Flats project in Monterey County that will have a dramatic impact on local wildlife and habitat. Conservation organizations were able to work out an agreement that removes or mitigates most of this damage, allowing the project to move forward.

The truth is that no one – except the author of Outside’s article – believes that we need to choose between wildlife protection and renewable energy. The world has moved past this to a place where we simply make smart choices. The State of California, one of the most environmentally regulated states on earth, is already meeting is challenging goals for renewable energy production. And it’s doing this by avoiding the same mistakes that were made when the world rushed to create its petroleum energy infrastructure.

How you can help, right now