Case Against Renewable Energy

[dianaiad]

As facetious as your reply is, it’s shows how much you suddenly lost your position. Perhaps you didn’t understand, they cite scientific studies and wiki is generally good at summerising.

Now if you really desire, I can actually examine the literature they cite and I can look further into other studies, because I have access to it, but I don’t think I need to do that. You seem to lack any evidence that affirms your fervent stance.

Be my guest. However, you MIGHT try to actually read what I am writing and not what you assume I am writing. Since one poster has already outright admitted, when she said that she didn't read my post because one of the paragraphs was 'too long,' I don't have a whole lot of faith that those who are responding to me are actually getting the point.

I am NOT claiming that wind farms kill MORE birds than fossil fuels or tall buildings or electric lines or whatever. I am NOT advocating that wind farms be torn down and/or forbidden. I AM saying that they do pose a problem, and that problem needs addressing. Just because an individual wind farm might not kill as many buildings as the entirety of the electric grid of the USA doesn't mean it doesn't kill wildlife.

I would THINK that those who are 'green,' or mindful of the ecology would be concerned about anything that causes problems, but quite frankly, what I'm seeing here is a blatantly partisan stand, where (as one poster also outright stated) that sometimes one has to choose between two rapists.

I don't think we do have to choose. I think that, in going for renewable energy, we need to acknowledge problems as they crop up, and then endeavor to fix those problems.

In the post that the other critic admitted not reading (and that you evidently didn't read either) I mentioned some of the methods that wind farm owners are trying in order to lessen the impact of wind farms on bird populations. I get most of my information from the people who actually own the farms, and those who are affected by them, since, y'know, I'm RIGHT THERE. The Tehachapi farm is part of my view every single day. I am very aware of the things that are being tried to keep from, for instance, eliminating the California Condor.

Oh, yes, and I do get a lot of information from the Audubon Society, which, believe it or not, is NOT wholesale against wind farms.

But what I'm seeing here from you guys is what you are criticizing from the 'pro-coal people." That is, a complete denial that wind and solar energy causes any problems at all....just like the folks who support the energy you hate do. You guys are so politically in favor of 'renewable energy" in terms of wind farms that you refuse to see any problems or any need to address them. That is just as short sighted as those who want to keep mining and burning coal.

It's also as hypocritical as all get out, and a complete credibility destroyer, indicating as it does as one sided an approach to this as any far right wing oil advocate.

 

[ChristineM]

No. However, Holland's windmills are not the same as windfarms in California. Not even remotely close. For one thing, the Tehachapi windfarm, very close to where I live, has, quite literally, four times as many wind turbines as in the whole of the Netherlands. When you combine that number with the Altamont Pass windfarm, it surpasses the number of turbines proposed by the Netherlands off shore farms by six times. ....and that's just two of the windfarms in California. When you add in all the windmills in California, you have TEN TIMES the number of turbines in Holland, and Texas has considerably more than California does.



No, actually, the existing windfarms did not take migration paths into account. I see that you have done very little research into this matter. NEW ones will try to take migration paths into account. That's one of the solutions that wind farm owners are looking at. You would have learned this had you bothered to read the post to which you are responding.



So...you would rather have a world that is making entire bird species go extinct because you don't like fossil fuels? How does that make you any different from the people you obviously despise? Denying that your favorite energy production method has problems doesn't help you any more than denying that fossil fuels have problems helps anybody else. Just...acknowledge the problem, and also acknowledge that there needs to be a solution to it.

That solution need not involve eliminating wind farms, but I don't see how trading the evils of fossil fuel for the evils of destroying the ecology is an acceptable solution to our energy needs.



I would prefer neither rapist, thank you. Acknowledge the problems. Fix them. How is that a horrible thing?



You really sound like the very worst of the right wing global warming deniers. How in the world can you say that 'wildlife' isn't part of the world? Something that is destructive to wildlife IS destructive to the world. Perhaps you can tell me how having a smog free sky without birds in it is better than the other way around?





Given that this paragraph addressed all the criticisms and snarks you have issued here, you really should have made the effort to read it. Responding to a post without reading it causes problems. One can end up responding with stuff that makes one look...well...hmn.






And I wish the far left didn't sound exactly like the far right, on the other end of the spectrum. The IDEA, Christine, is to find, acknowledge and SOLVE the problems. In the paragraph that you didn't bother to read, you would have found out that wind farm owners are trying to do exactly that. Attitudes like yours aren't helping.

The windmills in holland still have sails that rotate in the wing. Quantity is not in question. But consider the population of Holland to that of Ametica, and of course america just has to make bigger and brag about it.

I live in europe, it seems planning permissions are somewhat more advanced so no need to get personal about it.

Now that is just a pathetic argument .???ENTIRE??? Wow. Anyway, if it comes to a REDUCTION in bird numbers compared with projections if we continue to use fossil fuels i will take the survival of my offspring... How about you?

My favourite energy production method...more personal bullpoop. Where is your evidence that wind power is my favourite? Oh and if you bother to actually understand my previous post you will notice my comment "What i see is that green energy is the better of 2 rapists" FYI, i do not have a favourite rapist.

So why are you griping about windpower?

Who said it was a horrible thing? You are the one griping about wind power

Again, total bull, where have i said wildlife isnt part of the world? Or are you saying fossil fuels are conducive to wildlife,. Damn, i can hear the birds coughing in agreement

I have dyslexia, if you cant write in manageable chunks i see no reason why i should damage myself to read it. And of course mockery of disability says so much about a person dont you think?

We are done,

 

[charlie sc]

Be my guest. However, you MIGHT try to actually read what I am writing and not what you assume I am writing. Since one poster has already outright admitted, when she said that she didn't read my post because one of the paragraphs was 'too long,' I don't have a whole lot of faith that those who are responding to me are actually getting the point.

I am NOT claiming that wind farms kill MORE birds than fossil fuels or tall buildings or electric lines or whatever. I am NOT advocating that wind farms be torn down and/or forbidden. I AM saying that they do pose a problem, and that problem needs addressing. Just because an individual wind farm might not kill as many buildings as the entirety of the electric grid of the USA doesn't mean it doesn't kill wildlife.

I would THINK that those who are 'green,' or mindful of the ecology would be concerned about anything that causes problems, but quite frankly, what I'm seeing here is a blatantly partisan stand, where (as one poster also outright stated) that sometimes one has to choose between two rapists.

I don't think we do have to choose. I think that, in going for renewable energy, we need to acknowledge problems as they crop up, and then endeavor to fix those problems.

In the post that the other critic admitted not reading (and that you evidently didn't read either) I mentioned some of the methods that wind farm owners are trying in order to lessen the impact of wind farms on bird populations. I get most of my information from the people who actually own the farms, and those who are affected by them, since, y'know, I'm RIGHT THERE. The Tehachapi farm is part of my view every single day. I am very aware of the things that are being tried to keep from, for instance, eliminating the California Condor.

Oh, yes, and I do get a lot of information from the Audubon Society, which, believe it or not, is NOT wholesale against wind farms.

But what I'm seeing here from you guys is what you are criticizing from the 'pro-coal people." That is, a complete denial that wind and solar energy causes any problems at all....just like the folks who support the energy you hate do. You guys are so politically in favor of 'renewable energy" in terms of wind farms that you refuse to see any problems or any need to address them. That is just as short sighted as those who want to keep mining and burning coal.

It's also as hypocritical as all get out, and a complete credibility destroyer, indicating as it does as one sided an approach to this as any far right wing oil advocate.

I didn't read every letter of what you said but I appear to have got the gist right. I'll expound some of your flaws in your reasoning.

Perhaps you can tell me how having a smog free sky without birds in it is better than the other way around?

Here you seem to think that wind-turbines will genocide the whole bird population, even if the sky is clear. However, this is not what studies show. First, not all birds migrate or fly near wind turbines or can even fly. So, you are plain wrong from a logical perspective and using sophistry. Second, Wind turbines count towards much fewer bird deaths than fossil fuel power plants 20,000 vs 14 million https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857?via=ihub. So, a more appropriate view of your example would be a thick sky with much fewer birds vs wind turbines with much more birds

That solution need not involve eliminating wind farms, but I don't see how trading the evils of fossil fuel for the evils of destroying the ecology is an acceptable solution to our energy needs.

This is assuming wind-turbines are evil and this seems to be the bulk of your issue. It may be unavoidable that tall objects kill some birds, because of how they evolved and process information. What would be a more appropriate question to ask is whether wind-turbines actually will cause or vastly contribute to a possible annihilation of some of their species. Not all lol and the evidence does not point towards this. In fact, cats, buildings+windows and transmission lines seem to be the highest killer of birds. However, let's assume your logic and say wind-turbines are evil because birds die by them. Then, the prior said are evil and so are cars and trucks, because cars and trucks kills birds more than wind-turbines. So, now we need to do something about them too. You don't seem to want to remove wind-farms if they aren't built near migration areas, but then birds will probably still die near them.

What is your solution then and how would you remedy the other evils? I'd suggest that some birds are more able to adapt to human technology than others and some deaths may be unavoidable.

 

[dianaiad]

I didn't read every letter of what you said but I appear to have got the gist right. I'll expound some of your flaws in your reasoning.



Here you seem to think that wind-turbines will genocide the whole bird population, even if the sky is clear. However, this is not what studies show. First, not all birds migrate or fly near wind turbines or can even fly. So, you are plain wrong from a logical perspective and using sophistry. Second, Wind turbines count towards much fewer bird deaths than fossil fuel power plants 20,000 vs 14 million https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857?via=ihub. So, a more appropriate view of your example would be a thick sky with much fewer birds vs wind turbines with much more birds



This is assuming wind-turbines are evil and this seems to be the bulk of your issue. It may be unavoidable that tall objects kill some birds, because of how they evolved and process information. What would be a more appropriate question to ask is whether wind-turbines actually will cause or vastly contribute to a possible annihilation of some of their species. Not all lol and the evidence does not point towards this. In fact, cats, buildings+windows and transmission lines seem to be the highest killer of birds. However, let's assume your logic and say wind-turbines are evil because birds die by them. Then, the prior said are evil and so are cars and trucks, because cars and trucks kills birds more than wind-turbines. So, now we need to do something about them too. You don't seem to want to remove wind-farms if they aren't built near migration areas, but then birds will probably still die near them.

What is your solution then and how would you remedy the other evils? I'd suggest that some birds are more able to adapt to human technology than others and some deaths may be unavoidable.

Yeah, well, you have obviously not gotten the point either. I give up.

 

[Salvador]

What happens with the extra generation of a wind farm/solar power plant when it's not possible to be consumed by users? All this energy can't be affordably stored and is thereby lost; hence, solar or wind energy is very inefficient and unreliable. Nuclear power is way more efficient and a reliable energy source as an alternative to fossil fuel. ...

Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close

 

[QuestioningMind]

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

All of the alternatives you mention, regardless of that negative side effects they may have, are far superior to continuing to burn the fossil fuels that may have already altered out climate beyond repair.

 

[Brickjectivity]

All of the alternatives you mention, regardless of that negative side effects they may have, are far superior to continuing to burn the fossil fuels that may have already altered out climate beyond repair.

The video is promoting nuclear power over renewables (wind, solar, batteries) and is not promoting fossil fuels, but you make a good point that fossil fuels should only be used in moderation.

 

[charlie sc]

Yeah, well, you have obviously not gotten the point either. I give up.

I like you and I don't think you should give up.

They are driven by political agendas and aren't actually thinking about the science. Windfarms ARE that destructive.

I think you should follow your own advice but rather focus your anger on what is really bad for birds right now. Here is science: a science article explaining that, "Overwhelming scientific consensus supports that cats are an invasive species; they have caused dozens of extinctions," and, "contribute to "1.4-3.7 billion birds and 6.9-20.7 billion mammals annually."
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States

Perhaps we should start killing cats to save birds? I mean, look how destructive they are. However, we have a problem: cats seem to have taken over YouTube, so many people will not like this and we'll probably face resistance. At any rate, let's follow science, not politics and kill cats to save birds.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

Well, I think at least the guy seems to be pushing facts.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The video is promoting nuclear power over renewables (wind, solar, batteries) and is not promoting fossil fuels, but you make a good point that fossil fuels should only be used in moderation.

Perhaps if we'd invested in nuclear decades ago, but if we wait to get new safe plants up and running it's going to be too late. We're at the point where we need to try ANYTHING to reduce carbon emissions right now and deal with the negative consequences later. Because none of those negative consequences can compare to the devastation that will occur if we don't begin SERIOUSLY dealing with fossil fuels.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What happens with the extra generation of a wind farm/solar power plant when it's not possible to be consumed by users? All this energy can't be affordably stored and is thereby lost; hence, solar or wind energy is very inefficient and unreliable. Nuclear power is way more efficient and a reliable energy source as an alternative to fossil fuel. ...

Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close

That's one reason there has been such great advancements in battery storage technologies, as a fix for this problem, so in the long term they may well be solutions. Just like nuclear could be a long term solution. Unfortunately, since we haven't invested in new safe nuclear power plants over the last few decades, nuclear isn't a viable solution on it's own right now. My the time enough nuclear plants are built to replace fossils fuels, it'll be too late. That's why until we can virtually eliminate the use of fossil fuels, every other option needs to be welcomed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Perhaps if we'd invested in nuclear decades ago, but if we wait to get new safe plants up and running it's going to be too late. We're at the point where we need to try ANYTHING to reduce carbon emissions right now and deal with the negative consequences later. Because none of those negative consequences can compare to the devastation that will occur if we don't begin SERIOUSLY dealing with fossil fuels.

I observe nobody is willing to cap their own electricity, and if nobody is willing to do that then you have no control of the situation. The demand for power is higher than what windmills and solar panels can provide currently, and they take a lot of space and materials. If the situation is that bad then you have to cap the power, cut the demand. You could for example introduce progressive pricing which will cause people to become aware of how much power they are using. You could also ban or cripple the production of products which require a lot of energy and which are not related to food production. Nobody will like these measures, but they will work.

 

[Dell]

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

Hopefully fusion can prove to be the energy answer of the future, probably 50 to 100 years from now. If our economies don't slow its progress. I would also imagine newer battery technology will benefit the reason to own an electric car vs gas or diesel in the future also. We are along way from that future still... its almost like a race against time to get to that point. I'm afraid we are going to see a major insect, reptile, bird, fish, and large animal extinction along the way. Adding stress of populated land reclaimed by sea levels. We are riding the proverbial tigers back.

 

[dianaiad]

I like you and I don't think you should give up.



I think you should follow your own advice but rather focus your anger on what is really bad for birds right now. Here is science: a science article explaining that, "Overwhelming scientific consensus supports that cats are an invasive species; they have caused dozens of extinctions," and, "contribute to "1.4-3.7 billion birds and 6.9-20.7 billion mammals annually."
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States

Perhaps we should start killing cats to save birds? I mean, look how destructive they are. However, we have a problem: cats seem to have taken over YouTube, so many people will not like this and we'll probably face resistance. At any rate, let's follow science, not politics and kill cats to save birds.

In other words, because cats kill birds, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to do anything to prevent bird kills by wind farms.

Gotcha.

Er.....isn't that like saying that because (thinking of something that just might get through here...) because 3600 people die in car crashes every day in the US, which is 36 times as many as die by a gun that day, that there is no need to worry about people misusing guns?


Can I start using your argument the next time someone starts screaming about gun bans and stricter controls? That we don't need any of that, because, well, cars kill a whole lot more people than guns do?

 

[charlie sc]

In other words, because cats kill birds, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to do anything to prevent bird kills by wind farms.

Gotcha.

Er.....isn't that like saying that because (thinking of something that just might get through here...) because 3600 people die in car crashes every day in the US, which is 36 times as many as die by a gun that day, that there is no need to worry about people misusing guns?


Can I start using your argument the next time someone starts screaming about gun bans and stricter controls? That we don't need any of that, because, well, cars kill a whole lot more people than guns do?
.

That's not what I said. I appreciate your fervent, foaming by the mouth, passion on this topic, but I'd also appreciate if you did not straw-man me.
Perhaps I'll explain this in a way you'd understand. Imagine a doctor and he sees someone who's about to die versus someone who has a cold. I'd assume a good doctor will choose to try the prevent the death of the extremely sick person and get to the less needy afterwards. Hence, to use my analogy, perhaps focus on cats first, which appear to be far more detrimental to birds.
However, if you want to go balls in Don Quixote style, charging the wind-turbine, be my guest. Though, I would expect the same passion vs cats on this subject; you know, if you're intellectually honest.

 

[dianaiad]

That's not what I said. I appreciate your fervent, foaming by the mouth, passion on this topic, but I'd also appreciate if you did not straw-man me.

I am not 'strawmaning' you. In fact, you are the one committing the strawman fallacy. For instance, you are accusing me of being 'foaming at the mouth" about this issue, and, frankly, accusing me of wanting to..oh...get rid of windfarms or of wanting to prohibit their future construction. Indeed, you are pulling a false dichotomy here; either one MUST support renewable energy (such as windfarms) in a way that does not allow the appreciation of problems that need solving, OR one is totally against renewable energy and is a global warming denier who wants to drown all babies in lakes of hydrochloric acid produced by the over abundance of CO 2 produced by cow farts.

None of you are actually reading my posts, OR getting my point.

As to your example of the 'really sick' person and the guy with the cold....er....

the problem with ignoring the guy with the cold is that colds can develop into bronchitis, which can turn into pneumonia. Nothing wrong with saying to the guy with the cold: "take a couple of Tylenol tablets to lower your temp, drink fluids and call me if you get worse." Takes a whole minute and a half and can be done while one is dealing with the 'really sick' person. Doing so could well prevent that guy with the cold from becoming the next 'really sick' person.

................and dealing with the problem of the Tehachapi wind farm being really dangerous to the whole 148 California Condors left in the wild does not detract from the problem of getting rid of fossil fuels. One CAN do both at the same time.

but the attitude I'm seeing here is that it has to be one or the other, and the politically correct thing to do is ...let the windmills kill off the condors. Which, when one thinks about it, is a really strange thing to see in a bunch of 'green' folks who claim to be all for protecting the planet.

After all, if we protect the planet at the cost of the wildlife that lives upon it, are we really protecting the planet? Now Tehachapi has developed a way to protect the Condor, by using a detection system keyed to the GPS chips almost all condors have; when one comes too close, the farm shuts down. Don't know how long that will be feasible, but it is a great step in the right direction....and it does not involve getting rid of the windmills.

....and THAT isn't something I have advocated. Though you are quite welcome to show where I have come even close to doing so.

The point here is simple...and really weird. I honestly didn't think I'd come across this particular attitude, and that is why I come across all 'passionate,' I guess. I'm having problems believing that a bunch of 'green' people are that incredibly callous and uncaring; let the windmills kill off as many birds as possible. It's fine...windmills are renewable energy and thus can do no harm.

So animals who would ordinarily live where the windmills are no longer do so because they are too noisy...that's OK too, right? Great heavens....it wasn't all THAT long ago that a farmer who inadvertently killed a kangaroo rat when he was breaking land for his farm was arrested and charged with breaking the endangered species act.

But it's just wonderful that wind farms can violate that same act, because windmills are politically correct and disk harrows are not?

Hypocrite, much?

 

[charlie sc]

I am not 'strawmaning' you. In fact, you are the one committing the strawman fallacy. For instance, you are accusing me of being 'foaming at the mouth" about this issue, and, frankly, accusing me of wanting to..oh...get rid of windfarms or of wanting to prohibit their future construction. Indeed, you are pulling a false dichotomy here; either one MUST support renewable energy (such as windfarms) in a way that does not allow the appreciation of problems that need solving, OR one is totally against renewable energy and is a global warming denier who wants to drown all babies in lakes of hydrochloric acid produced by the over abundance of CO 2 produced by cow farts.

None of you are actually reading my posts, OR getting my point.

Lol. Then what your solution? Birds die, in mass, by buildings alone. Therefore, it's obvious they'll die by wind-turbines if they cant even dodge buildings and glass. Some species of birds fail horribly with our technology and some thrive(e.g. pigeon).

You might as well complain that all life eventually ends. Yeah, it sucks, but what do you want to do about it or is there a viable solution ?

Btw, you said so many things wrong but I try not to critique it.

 

[charlie sc]

Btw, I enjoy your posts because they're full of passion seriously

So, let's see. These are your solutions:

developed a way to protect the Condor, by using a detection system keyed to the GPS chips almost all condors have; when one comes too close, the farm shuts down.

and

Which means that mountain passes in the middle of migratory paths are a Bad Idea

Put detection chips in condors and avoid migration areas. Anything else?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So windmills ostensibly killing birds (why not just put some mesh around it or something? Seems like there’s a pretty easy solution either way) is bad? Sure I agree with such a premise. But I thought all the hippies were upset at fossil fuels for literally killing the planet? Or at least planet life.

The whole deal about fossil fuels was a load of crap. Human beings have been burning wood for about 4000 years (at least) with no ill effects. The burning of fossil fuels was slightly less clean, and coal in particular can in fact pollute the air. In fact, the London "fog" nearly choked people at one point. But except in areas with millions of people packed densely (Mexico City, NYC, Chicago), most people in small towns aren't even capable of making the air substantially unclean, but they are made to pay carbon taxes. All of these places, btw, are telling us how we are polluting so much. Giant hypocrites, more like.

And another thing! CO2 is a natural gas exhaled by humans and animals, and can be purified by plants. If machines are releasing this, they are doing pretty well. It's only when CO (carbon monoxide) is exhausted that the pollution needs to be managed.

Wind energy, doesn't just kill a few birds. MILLIONS.
https://abcbirds.org/article/wind-power-could-kill-millions-of-birds-per-year-by-2030/
And here's the issue with solar power. The panels are made of graphene, something that is not only incredibly sharp, but also incredibly toxic. It breaks into shards that can find their way into to the water systems, killing fish. Along with other things.
Toxic Chemicals in Solar Panels

As far as I know, tidal energy is fairly safe, so is geothermal. They pull energy from sources, but don't really drain energy. But this gets swept under the rug for more "popular" energy sources.

 

[charlie sc]

The whole deal about fossil fuels was a load of crap. Human beings have been burning wood for about 4000 years (at least) with no ill effects. The burning of fossil fuels was slightly less clean, and coal in particular can in fact pollute the air. In fact, the London "fog" nearly choked people at one point. But except in areas with millions of people packed densely (Mexico City, NYC, Chicago), most people in small towns aren't even capable of making the air substantially unclean, but they are made to pay carbon taxes. All of these places, btw, are telling us how we are polluting so much. Giant hypocrites, more like.

And another thing! CO2 is a natural gas exhaled by humans and animals, and can be purified by plants. If machines are releasing this, they are doing pretty well. It's only when CO (carbon monoxide) is exhausted that the pollution needs to be managed.

Wind energy, doesn't just kill a few birds. MILLIONS.
https://abcbirds.org/article/wind-power-could-kill-millions-of-birds-per-year-by-2030/
And here's the issue with solar power. The panels are made of graphene, something that is not only incredibly sharp, but also incredibly toxic. It breaks into shards that can find their way into to the water systems, killing fish. Along with other things.
Toxic Chemicals in Solar Panels

As far as I know, tidal energy is fairly safe, so is geothermal. They pull energy from sources, but don't really drain energy. But this gets swept under the rug for more "popular" energy sources.

Your cat kills more birds than 1 wind-turbine.

So, what you gonna do?

Don't worry, I'm a corgi. I can fix the problem.