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