Are renewables really wiping out wildlife?

I AM still trying to understand Joanne Bell’s stance against renewable energy. I am sure that all those writing in favour of Net

Zero are equally concerned for the environment. How do people come to such different conclusions?

I suspect that part of the reason is that Joanne Bell’s opinion is based on personal experiences that she says have left a deep and lasting impression.

I don’t know how I would feel if I saw a majestic eagle killed by a wind turbine, that would be distressing. But for those of us who maybe have not had the life opportunities that Joanne Bell has had, we may be more inclined to weigh up such issues with other things we see in documentaries and the like.

As a result, I feel very differently. Individual suffering is evident in wildlife all the time. Animals are brutally killed by predators; this is just nature. Less natural are the many birds killed by domestic cats. More birds are killed by vehicles and by crashing into windows on high-rise buildings and power lines than are killed by wind turbines. The extraction and use of fossil fuels also kills wildlife, yet Joanne Bell makes no comment.

Maybe it is down to the biology I learned before global warming was in the news. This makes me prioritise ecosystems above individual animals. This may seem an abstract view, but ultimately more important because an apex predator, such as an eagle, relies on a whole web of life to provide its prey.

Ecosystems will be highly disrupted by climate change because it is happening far more quickly than nature can adapt to. This is why the RSPB supports wind farms but demands they are done correctly.

David Attenborough has highlighted many examples of disrupted ecosystems far better than I can here. Habitats in polar regions and in coral reefs are often shown because the signs of stress are already evident.

Surely, we have to prioritise ecosystems over individual events, however distressing.

Barry Cohen Devon