Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
A cost-benefit analysis for renewables and wildlife?
Some environmental ethicists might argue that renewable energy developers
have an absolute moral obligation to protect animal life, regardless of the
wind or solar energy project would likely disrupt the habitat of even a single
bald eagle or desert tortoise is sufficient cause to halt the project.
The reality is that nearly all forms of real estate development—including
energy development—adversely impact wildlife to some degree, and
the existence of these adverse impacts does not necessarily mean that
construction should come to a halt. Construction of a single building often
displaces or kills thousands of common ants, but no one argues against new
construction on that account because there are probably millions of similar
ants in the same region. Such a building is thus unlikely to threaten the
continued existence of any particular ant variety or have any problematic
impact on local ant population numbers.
Of course, the analysis quickly becomes more complicated when a wind
or solar energy project threatens to adversely affect an animal species with
much lower population numbers. Human disruptions of the habitats of
these rarer creatures can implicate far greater social costs and thus cannot
be as quickly dismissed as the inevitable consequences of social progress.
On the other hand, to preserve every living creature from the impacts
of energy consumption, humankind would have to cease using energy
altogether. Even if great strides in energy efficiency are made in the coming
decades, the basic functioning of the global economy will always require
some baseline amount of electricity generation. To the extent that this
energy demand is not met through wind turbines, solar panels, and other
renewables, it will necessarily come from sources such as nuclear energy,
coal, and natural gas that can harm animal populations in other ways.
In other words, unless the world is willing to regress to the pre-industrial
age, an energy strategy that spares every living creature from harm is
not a viable option. As inhumane as it may seem, there is some socially
optimal number of raptors that should die annually from collisions with
wind turbine blades, and that number is greater than zero. Faced with this
unpleasant reality, policymakers have no reasonable choice but to search
for some efficient balance between renewable energy development and
wildlife conservation, recognizing the need for compromise on both sides of
this conflict. Despite what some ethicists might like to believe, a weighing
of costs and benefits is the only practical approach to these issues.
Weighing uncertain benefits and uncertain costs
Unfortunately, cost-benefit analyses of conflicts between renewables and
local wildlife are anything but easy. The benefits side of such equations
requires some guesstimate of the aggregate societal benefit of clean
Search WWH ::
Custom Search