This is not a "cool" science article, but it's food for thought. Especially since groups like Extinction Rebellion and the Fridays for Future kids (Greta Thunberg et al) are pushing politicians to "Do More" about climate change immediately. As I said elsewhere, it's complicated. Even if you ignore economic/societal factors.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... te-change/
We are destroying nature at an unprecedented rate, threatening the survival of a million species – and our own future, too. But it’s not too late to save them and us, says a major new report.
...The report, released today, is mostly grim reading. We humans have already significantly altered three-quarters of all land and two-thirds of the oceans. More than a third of land and three-quarters of freshwater resources are devoted to crops or livestock...
The problem isn’t just our focus on economic growth regardless of the impact on the natural world. Current plans for reducing carbon dioxide emissions to net-zero to limit climate change rely heavily on bioenergy, which requires a lot of land. This will accelerate species loss as well as threatening food and water security, says the report. In fact, the bioenergy push is already causing harm. For instance, rainforests are being cut down in Indonesia and Malaysia to grow palm oil to make biodiesel for cars in Europe.
Transforming our civilisation to make it more sustainable will require more connected thinking, the report says. “There’s a very fragmented approach,” says Watson. “We’ve got to think about all these things in a much more holistic way.”
For instance, there are ways of tackling climate change that will help biodiversity too, such as persuading people to eat less meat and planting more trees. But the devil is in the detail – artificial plantations would benefit wildlife far less than restoring natural forests...
There was a similar suggestion/speculation in a recent study in Science that suggested bird populations are decreasing: shorebirds may be losing habitat from development (houses, etc.) but some species may be dwindling because we're turning more grasslands into ethanol/biofuels, and monoculture doesn't support bird populations very well. IMO, this is also something that proponents of wind energy don't acknowledge - giant windmill farms that were once empty space are likely to discourage birds nesting and feeding in the area. I don't have an answer - wind certainly seems better than mining and burning coal - but I also don't like renewable energy people drowning out people who bring up valid concerns, including the finite lifespan of windmills (what will happen to them once they're obsolete?).
And there may be some other hidden costs that need to be figured out, before we rush into things:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
Climate change: Electrical industry's 'dirty secret' boosts warming
It's the most powerful greenhouse gas known to humanity, and emissions have risen rapidly in recent years, the BBC has learned. Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents. But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.
Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom...
It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities. It prevents electrical accidents and fires. However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2). ...
It also persists in the atmosphere for a long time, warming the Earth for at least 1,000 years...
So why are we using more of this powerful warming gas?
The way we make electricity around the world is changing rapidly. Where once large coal-fired power stations brought energy to millions, the drive to combat climate change means they are now being replaced by mixed sources of power including wind, solar and gas. This has resulted in many more connections to the electricity grid, and a rise in the number of electrical switches and circuit breakers that are needed to prevent serious accident...
The question of alternatives to SF6 has been contentious over recent years.
For high-voltage applications, experts say there are very few solutions that have been rigorously tested. "There is no real alternative that is proven," said Prof Manu Haddad from the school of engineering at Cardiff University. "There are some that are being proposed now but to prove their operation over a long period of time is a risk that many companies don't want to take."
However, for medium voltage operations there are several tried-and-tested materials. ...
Sitting in the North Sea some 43km from the Suffolk coast, Scottish Power Renewables has installed one of world's biggest wind farms where the turbines will be free of SF6 gas...
But even for companies that are trying to limit the use of SF6, there are still limitations. At the heart of East Anglia One sits a giant offshore substation to which all 102 turbines will connect. It still uses significant quantities of the highly warming gas...
Speaking of that bird study, btw, one interesting thing was that raptor populations are doing rather well. So are waterfowl. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet but I'm wondering if they mentioned things like the effect of West Nile virus on American birds (we lost a lot of birds when it was introduced and I'm not sure how many species have recovered yet as immunity develops) or mycoplasmal conjunctivitis affecting house finches (the finches don't die, but they have trouble feeding and escaping predators).