African Wildlife & Environment Issue 76 FINAL

LETTERS

From Willem Hazewindus Your denouncement of wind energy in African Wildlife & Environment issue #74 needs to be put into perspective. It is very sad that wind turbines cause the death of a variety of birds. But that by itself is no reason to advocate the opposition of wind turbines in order to prevent the death of birds. On that basis it could be argued that the use of motor vehicles should be opposed because they cause biodiversity road deaths. One could go even further and oppose the generation of electricity because of a multitude of unintended consequences to our biodiversity and to the environment! Realistically, if we accept that as people we want electricity, we should calculate what the most cost effectiveAND the most environmentally friendly modes of generation are, recognising the limitations of solar at night and turbines when the wind does not blow. In the same way that you calculated the carbon footprint of erecting wind turbines, it would be only fair to do the same calculation for erecting solar, coal, gas and hydro power generation facilities, and then compare them per Megawatt generation capacity. In addition, comparisons on carbon footprint per Megawatt generated should be presented. The impact of the various generating

I think what I am trying to say is that all of the alternatives reallyneed tobeweightedupagainst eachotherwithvarious indications as to howefficient, and sustainable, each energy is in terms of production, installation, maintenance, direct ecological impact, greenhouse gas production, feasibility (geography, climate, etc), etc these different sources are, and then invest in the one which ticks the most boxes… When you weigh up the global impact of Climate Change (increasing temperatures, desertification, lack of rain, flooding, etc) on local ecologies, I think that the NET negative impact of these climate changes around the globe probably would account for more habitat and species loss than wind turbines ever could. Unfortunately, given the ever-increasing human population and our demands for more food, energy, EVERYTHING, we only really have a choice of the lesser of many evils. Birders (such as myself) will always hate the turbines, and I share your sadness for the high losses of raptors especially, as I am passionate about raptor conservation - particularly vultures. Those passionate about wetland conservation and river habitats will always hate dams. Those who are into Marine Conservation will always hate tidal barriers. In my mind, Solar is the way to go. The reason I felt so strongly to present my response to you I think was born from a fear that some readers may

modes on biodiversity should then be determined and compared. Furthermore, the air quality degradation (and negative health impacts) of thedifferent generating facilities should also be presented. For example, if wind kills birds but coal kills humans, what would the choice be? Only once we have a total and comprehensive picture of the potential benefits and downsides of the various modes of electricity generation will we be able to make informed decisions on the least harmful ways for biodiversity – which includes Homo sapiens.

not give enough time and consideration to the need to be producing less fossil-based energy. And as such, an article which effectively says ‘wind power is bad’ in its entirety, may mislead people to feel that there is absolutely no place for it whatsoever, and that a better and more viable alternative is just more of the same - ‘it doesn’t matter anyway, I’ll be long gone before the coal runs out…' Thank you for your interesting editorial, and apologies for imposing my thoughts upon you!

Willem Hazewindus Past chair WESSA NAR, and Recipient of WESSA Lifetime Conservation Achiever Award. Lone Hill, 21 January 2020

4 | African Wildlife & Environment | Issue 76 (2020)