flying

Making wind turbines safer for birds

September 18, 2024 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

There are people who oppose the installation of wind turbines for a variety of reasons. It is true that wind turbines can be dangerous to birds. Estimates are that about 250,000 birds are killed flying into wind turbines each year in the U.S.

However, this data needs to be looked at in comparison to bird deaths from flying into electrical lines (25 million), vehicles (214 million), and building glass (at least 600 million). And even these figures pale in comparison to the more than 2 billion birds killed by domestic cats each year.

Despite these facts, it would still be great if fewer birds died from flying into wind turbines. Researchers at Oregon State University are part of a team looking at reducing bird collision risks from wind turbines by painting a single blade of the turbine black.

Recent research in Norway found that painting a single turbine blade black reduced the number of bird collisions by nearly 72%. Why should this work? The hypothesis is that the black-painted blades disrupt the visual uniformity of the airspace around the turbines and makes them more noticeable to birds, which prompts avoidance behavior.

The Norwegian data is based on a relatively small sample size and the Oregon State researchers as well as others in Spain, Sweden, and South Africa are working on more rigorous and comprehensive studies.

The hope is that this rather simple strategy could make windfarms safer for birds. Unfortunately, this approach is not likely to be very effective with bats, which rely more on auditory cues rather than visual cues.

**********

Web Links

Scientists studying impact of painting wind turbine blade black to reduce bird collisions

Photo, posted May 21, 2024, courtesy of Roy Harryman via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Spending Habits And Carbon Emissions | Earth Wise

September 1, 2021 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

According to a new Swedish study recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, men spend their money on greenhouse gas-emitting goods and services, such as meat and fuel, at a much higher rate than women.

The study looked at the carbon emissions created by consumption among categories like food, clothing, furniture, and vacations to see if households could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by buying different products and services. The research team reviewed Swedish government data through 2012 and analyzed the spending habits of households, single men, and single women.

According to the study, single Swedish men spent about 2% more money overall than single Swedish women. But the stuff that the men bought created 16% more greenhouse gases than the stuff that the women bought. That’s because men were more likely to spend money on high-emitting categories, like fuel for cars, while women spent more on less-emitting categories like furniture, health care, and clothing.

For both men and women, vacations were a major source of emissions, accounting for approximately one-third of their total carbon footprint.

While the carbon impact of men’s and women’s diets were nearly equal, men spent more money on meat while women spent more on dairy. Both meat and dairy production are major sources of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The study found single people were responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than married people or people in households.

According to the research team, people could decrease their carbon emissions nearly 40% by making more environmentally-friendly choices, including switching to plant-based foods and traveling by train as opposed to flying or driving when possible.

**********

Web Links

Men have a bigger carbon footprint than women, climate study finds

Photo, posted June 17, 2012, courtesy of Stephen Ausmus/USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Banning Short Plane Flights | Earth Wise

May 20, 2021 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Almost everything we do ultimately results in greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and therefore has an impact on the climate. But some activities have much more impact than others. The aviation industry is responsible for about 5% of global warming.

This doesn’t seem like that large a contribution, but only a very small percentage of the world’s population flies frequently and even in richer countries, only around half the population flew in any given year (at least before the pandemic.)

Flying is generally the only practical option for most long-haul trips and unless people give up on seeing the world or conducting global business in person, they are not going to give up taking air trips.

But shorter flights are a different story. If you are planning to take a reasonably short trip in France, a plane will soon no longer be an option. The French government says that flights will be banned on any route where the trip could be made on a train in 2.5 hours or less. The driving force is the reduction of CO2 emissions. A plane trip emits an average of 77 times more CO2 per passenger than taking a train on the same route.

The Netherlands and Belgium are also considering bans on short-haul flights and Austrian Airlines recently replaced its Vienna-to-Salzburg flights with train service.

Advocates of the flight bans say that not only does taking the train significantly reduce a traveler’s carbon footprint, but it can be cheaper and actually faster than a plane when factoring in the time spent getting to airports, standing in security lines, getting on and off planes, and so on. Europe’s extensive train system makes this approach broadly practical. Unfortunately, here in the U.S., it is not quite that easy.

**********

Web Links

France Will Ban Short Flights That Could Be Replaced By a Train Trip

Photo, posted December 17, 2016, courtesy of Dylan Agbagni via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Pandemic Lockdowns And Carbon Emissions | Earth Wise

November 25, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic saw many human activities reduced to a fraction of what they were previously. Notably, air pollution in major cities was dramatically lower than it had been in decades. Now, a new study has looked at the effect of the pandemic shutdowns on carbon dioxide emissions.

An international team of climate scientists has published an assessment of carbon dioxide emissions by industry, transportation, and other sectors from January through June. According to their measurements, this year’s pandemic lockdowns resulted in a 9% decline in emissions from 2019 levels.

An earlier study reported a 17% drop in CO2 emissions, but the new study was more comprehensive and detailed.

The new data includes estimates of day-by-day, sector-specific and country-level differences in CO2 emissions derived from frequently updated data sources, some of which are nearly in real-time. It tracks the effects of COVID-19-related disruptions of human activities in China starting in February and in the United States and Europe in March through May.

The data revealed the resumption of emissions in many regions, such as in China, where they are now back to pre-pandemic levels. Emissions in the Americas and Europe have been slower to recover, especially in the US, where COVID-19 hotspots are continuing to emerge.

The reduction in carbon emissions has been due mostly to transportation with fewer people driving to work and traveling by air. Even by June, when lockdowns were easing, global emissions were still significantly reduced. In any case, a pandemic is a highly undesirable and unwelcome way to reduce carbon emissions, but the data from this year does show that it is effective.

**********

Web Links

Pandemic lockdowns caused steep and lasting carbon dioxide decline

Photo, posted August 7, 2020, courtesy of Michael Mueller via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.