A new study by Trinomics, in collaboration with DTU Wind, shows that strategically earmarking EU funding for wind innovation and industrial scale-up delivers major economic and security benefits for Europe. By 2040, each €1 of public funding for wind generates €7 in annual economic returns, while significantly boosting the EU’s jobs, exports, and energy security. […]
      • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
        5·
        16 days ago

        yhea, conservatives that don’t mind destroying pristine nature to build factories, and fill landscapes with car dependent suburbia suddenly become environmentalists and are worried about the landscape.

        And without a doubt, those windmills are beautiful.

  • solo@slrpnk.net
    9·
    16 days ago

    By 2040, each €1 of public funding for wind generates €7 in annual economic returns,

    So the title is a lie, not a fact. It’s an estimation, coming from those who want the funding to increase. Trinomics does also lobbying in the EU. It’s easy to assume that green lobbying is fine because it’s for a good purpose, but it’s worth keeping in mind that lobbying’s purpose is about getting more money, no matter the argument used. So, the reality in the EU about wind turbines is that they are deployed even in Natura 2000 areas (protected biodiversity hotspots), and that’s because companies want to sell more turbines, to make more money.

    Please, don’t get me wrong, I’m all in for wind turbines, but only after proper assesments. This is why I strongly believe that we need to shift away from narratives and arguments related to profit, and focus on arguments centered around the intersections of environment, biodiversity, climate etc.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      4·
      16 days ago

      While that may be true, it really has to be thought about more in terms of relative harm instead of absolute harm:

      • biodiversity without simply shoving as many wind turbines, batteries, etc… Every where possible to change over every bit of energy possible will result in the destruction of the biodiversity because the climate is completely thrown off

      • mass migration from climates now unsuitable for humans will likely cause huge destruction of biodiversity in the same areas trying to accommodate so many more humans

      • As food shortages increase from global climate change, governments will probably not hesitate to destroy those biodiversity hotspots to try to grow more food for a hungry population

      If putting a windmill destroys 10% of the environment around it, it is absolutely preferable if it helps prevent the 90% destruction in the near future.

      • solo@slrpnk.net
        3·
        16 days ago

        Even if the examples you provided are all -to my understanding- hypotheticals, I appreciate you didn’t talk about money

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          1·
          15 days ago

          Hmm.Everything regarding the future is a hypothesis. It is impossible to be anything else. Climate change is a hypothesis. Climate catastrophe and ecosystem collapse is a hypothesis, but it has been modeled and simulated thousands of times over.

          If one discounts all very likely occurances because they are “just a hypothesis” then there is literal no planning for the future and we can just burn coal because coal’s future of causing rampant cancer and other health problems is a hypothesis and running out of fossil fuels js a hypothesis.