The National Audubon Society released the results of a seven-year study this week on the future of North American birds in a warming world, and that report is getting a lot of press. According to the report, of 588 species of birds studied, 314 are at risk of extinction due to climate change before the end of the century.
The study, based on data from Audubon's annual Christmas Bird Count and the North American Breeding Bird survey, found that 126 bird species are "climate-endangered": they're expected to lose more than 50 percent of their North American range by 2050 due to a warming climate. In other words, changing climate will make more than 50 percent of those birds' current range unsuitable for their survival. Another 188 "climate-threatened" bird species are projected to lose more than half their current range by 2080, though they may gain new potential range in areas formerly too cold or otherwise inhospitable.
The report underscores the dire future birds face if we don't act now to stem climate change. But it also highlights the main reason climate change threatens birds. A warming world means less habitat for many species of birds, which should give pause to those trying to excuse destruction of remaining habitat in order to combat climate change.
Every once in a while a study reveals something new that makes perfect sense when you think about it. Here's the latest example we've seen: a survey conducted by researchers for the San Diego-based Center for Sustainable Energy found that California homeowners who've shelled out for rooftop solar panels are far more likely to be interested in energy conservation.
Researchers Ria Langheim, Georgina Arreola, and Chad Reese report in the study that of more than 2,000 solar home owners surveyed, more than 80 percent put significant time and effort into household energy efficiency upgrades before installing their solar panels. Those upgrades included everything from more efficient lighting and appliances to improving the insulation in their homes.
The researchers suggest a straightforward reason for the interest in both solar and efficiency: most of the solar homeowners surveyed said saving money was the main reason for installing solar. And cutting down on energy consumption before going solar means you need fewer solar panels to power your home, thus saving even more money on installation.
A committee of the California Energy Commission today recommended approval of a new 940-megawatt natural gas-fueled power plant in Huntington Beach to replace an aging facility that's been offline since 2013. The committee's presiding member, Commissioner Andrew McAllister, and Commissioner Karen Douglas, determined the plant would not have significant impacts on the environment.
The public has 30 days to comment on the decision, and a hearing is scheduled for Sept. 17 in Sacramento. The full commission may accept, reject or change the committee's recommendations at an Oct. 7 meeting.
As part of the recent flurry of interest in the issue of harm to birds from solar power plants, some people are trying to compare the damage done to bird populations by solar facilities to other sources of bird mortality. If a coal plant kills more birds than a solar power plant, goes the reasoning, then the birds killed by a solar plant might be a reasonable cost to pay for getting off coal.
There's some truth to the argument. Fossil fueled power plants do an extraordinary amount of damage to the environment and wildlife, and sometimes trade-offs are reasonable to reduce the overall level of damage to the planet's other species.
But the discussion as it's shaping up on blogs and in social media is seriously flawed for a number of reasons. The biggest one: when it comes to gauging environmental harm, "birds" is a nearly useless category.
With last week's appearance of yet another prominent story on bird injuries at solar power plants, ReWire has been getting a lot of traffic on our previous coverage of the issue.
We've been reporting on the issue of burned birds at solar plants since mid-2012. It may have taken other news outlets a few additional months to notice the issue, but we're gratified that the topic is starting to see wider coverage.
As a guide to journalists and other readers who are struggling to come up to speed on the issue, we've compiled our reporting on burn injuries to birds at solar power plants -- over 50 stories in all -- into one handy, interactive post using the popular Storify curation tool. We hope you find it helpful in understanding the issue's broader context. And if you're a journalist, feel free to quote any of our stories with a citation and a link. We like when people do that.
More and more people are coming to terms with the established fact that our activities are warming the planet. Rooftop solar is increasingly popular with regular folks, and running your house on the sun is getting cheaper than utility power in more places. More and more communities across the country are working to oppose the fossil fuel's burgeoning practice of hydraulic fracturing.
Renewable energy is winning the war for the hearts and minds of the American public, in other words, and fossil fuels are losing. That creates a dilemma. What can a high-paid D.C. PR rep for dirty energy industries do to stem this tide of climate realism and clean energy sanity?
One such group has hit on an answer: make fun of celebrities. This month, a series of billboards has appeared along the Pennsylvania Turnpike mocking a few prominent entertainers for their green-leaning sentiments. The implication is that because these celebrities recognize the reality of climate change, that climate change isn't happening. And the message comes with a serving of plain old sexism to boot.