German Wildlife Foundation Calls For Wind Park Moratorium, Cites “Increase In Criminal Activity” By Wind Park Builders

The German Wildlife Foundation has put out a press release:
===================================

Chainsaws rip birdlife protection

The German Wildlife Foundation sees an increase in criminal activity in the construction of wind parks

Bird killed by wind turbine. Photo: German Wildlife Foundation

As delegates congregated in Paris, chainsaws were busily cutting down forests in Germany to make way for wind turbines. Protected trees which are homes to bird-life were being illegally cut down and birds killed.

Research by the German Wildlife Foundation, the Nature Protection Alliance (NABU) and the Committee Against Killing Birds have confirmed such criminal acts. So far at least 40 cases of illegal devastations to large birds within the scope of planned wind parks have been registered. In most cases the nests were destroyed or the trees cut down. At least in one case young birds were struck dead. The most common victim by far is the Red Kite. But also the extremely rare Lesser Spotted Eagle saw nests destroyed.

“These are not just random acts of recklessness by young rowdies, but rather criminal acts against protected species which can be punished with up to five years imprisonment,” says Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, sole Chairman of the German Wildlife Federation. “The killing and destruction of nests represent a whole new dimension in the endangerment of species by wind park facilities,” says Prof. Vahrenholt. “Biodiversity and species protection are being callously sacrificed under the guise of wind energy and climate protection.”

Unscrupulous green energy dealmakers

Such criminal acts have been registered in 10 German states already and scrupulous green energy dealmakers are doing it with chainsaws. The current minimum distance regulations in most cases would forbid the construction of wind power facilities. But the value of property on which a wind park is built increases enormously in value overnight with the use of chainsaws: For each wind turbine the property owner can expect to earn €1.6 million in leasing fees – i.e. € 80,000 per year, for 20 years.

The research results presented by the environmentalists shows a frightening trend: Two years ago two cases were reported, in 2014 there were ten cases, and this year through November there have been 19 cases of nest destruction and bird killing nationwide. In addition to the Red Kites and the Lesser Spotted Eagle, also other species such as sea eagles, black storches, tree hawks and bats have been impacted.

Charges have been lodged in all cases. The German Wildlife Foundation anticipates more charges over the coming months because trees are cut down mostly during the winter months. “Also the construction of wind energy continues unhindered, and for this reason we fear a new wave of nest destruction,” says Prof. Vahrenholt. The German Wildlife Foundation reiterates its demand for a moratorium on wind turbines in forests.

Anyone who witnesses such an incident is asked to document it, press charges and to inform the Wildlife Foundation. More here

For questions contact: Dr. Jochen Bellebaum at [+49] 40 9707869-25

21 responses to “German Wildlife Foundation Calls For Wind Park Moratorium, Cites “Increase In Criminal Activity” By Wind Park Builders”

  1. Bernd Felsche

    Germany’s not so kind to migratory birds, is it?

    1. David Appell

      How many birds do Germans kill from fouling ecosystems via burning coal, oil and gas, by driving into them with cars and trains, and by putting up buildings the birds slam into?

      Many, many more than by wind turbines, I suspect. So why weren’t you so concerned about birds BEFORE all the wind turbines?

      Hmm?

      1. David Johnson

        What a ridiculous comment.

      2. roger

        Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just incapable of parsing an article?
        This refers to mortalities caused by clear felling preparatory work to enable construction of access roads and the useless turbines.
        Turbines which produce power only 25 percent of their time in situ and thus fortunately have a diminished kill rate to their potential.
        Equally obscene is the reported 80000euro per turbine annual rental passed to the landowner, a class of person never noted in the past for altruism and a sense of community.

        1. David Appell

          “Equally obscene is the reported 80000euro per turbine annual rental passed to the landowner, a class of person never noted”

          Is that how it works in Europe — people aren’t even allowed to rent out their own land as they see fit?

      3. Bernd Felsche

        How many birds do Germans kill from fouling ecosystems via burning coal, oil and gas,

        How does that work? The areal and temporal impact of mineral, carbon-based fuels is tiny compared to the impact of wind turbines (requiring an area thousands of times greater to be planted with the things; compared to coal; including its mining). The temporal impact of accidental oil spills is very short (vis Gulf of Mexico) so life goes on; having previously adapted to natural oil spills.

        The only stuff that comes out of the stacks of a coal fired power station in Germany is water and carbon dioxide. Traces of other stuff are far less than those from wood fires in homes; or forest fires. Or the fascia insulation panels of eco-friendly houses.

        The most-foul ecosystems are those where either governments dictate what is to be done or where people are so desperate for resources that they have no time to consider tomorrow; their whole day consumed with survival. The prosperity of the West has been of greatest environmental benefit because the prosperity meant that people not only had time to think about the environment; but also because they had the wealth to do make changes.

        by driving into them with cars and trains, and by putting up buildings the birds slam into?

        The fastest surface vehicle are trains driven by electricity. Nuclear for much of it. Aircraft fly mostly above altitudes flown by birds. It’s landing and takeoff that are a bit of a hassle much of the time; and a big problem if you cooked your geese with an Airbus.

        We know that electrically-powered trains kill birds. They fire chickens at the windshields of trains to make sure that the driver doesn’t get an express, last meal.

        And what of the solar parks where insects lay their eggs on the shiny stuff; mistaking it for surface water? Billions of bugs eradicated before they even had a chance.

        Why haven’t you blamed the beaching of whales on the use of “fossil fuels”? Or the extinction of the unicorn?

        So why weren’t you so concerned about birds BEFORE all the wind turbines?

        Why do you feel it necessary to try to insult opponents who point out the flaws in your “arguments”? In this case projecting lack of concern; when you are in fact ignorant of my concerns.

        Why don’t you care today?

        Germany’s forests are now in the firing line; threatened by wind farms and wind farm construction.

        1. David Appell

          This isn’t an insult, Bernd: “So why weren’t you so concerned about birds BEFORE all the wind turbines?”

          Why aren’t you more concerned about the birds (not to mention humans) who die from fossil fuels?

          It shows you aren’t consistent, and are whining about whine turbines because, for some reason, you would prefer to inhale coal’s pollution.

      4. David Appell

        Pierre: You avoided answering my question.

        Is the answer really that bad?

  2. John F. Hultquist

    An old tree of large size is a marvelous thing. I have a few large Cottonwoods but as trees go, they are not really ancient. At about 60 to 80 years limbs die and/or get rotten inside. I also have Aspen that do not get as big but still have the issues mentioned.
    Small birds will hollow out a soft spot for a nest. For firewood I try to cut trees that are smaller, easier to harvest, and safer to work around. Occasionally I do cut a tree with nest holes – usually unknown – but once in awhile I will drop a tree that becomes a safety issue. I have a big one now that crumpled while I was near it – I ran when I heard the sound. It caught in other trees and now leans dramatically and dangerously. Too so for me to deal with.

    The Point: I feel guilty if I destroy a big tree that can be home to so many things. Any section I find with a nest hole, I cut out and take to another tree and wire the “home” into a new location. Does that do any good? I don’t known if birds use it again. I only know it is the right thing to do.

  3. David Appell

    Fossil fuels kill 2 orders of magnitude more birds than do wind farms:

    “The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update,” Benjamin K. Sovacool,Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 19–24. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857 – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/14/wind-turbine-strikes-endangered-stork-injuries-so-severe-it-had-to-be-put-down/comment-page-1/#comment-1035191

    Number of bird deaths per TWh:
    http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/24/nuclear-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-opposition-is-a-glaring-denial-of-reality/

    1. Bernd Felsche

      Bogus stats.

      Comparing numbers from 1%-producers and saying that they’re less than the producers of 50 to 100 times more usable energy. And no; linear proportioning doesn’t apply because, at least in Germany, all the prime wind locations are already in use (outside of national parks); so building 30 times more wind power on paper will not produce 30 times more electrical power.

      You’re also confusing human fatality figures with those of birds. Or you don’t read what you cite; just scan for keywords.

      1. David Appell

        You’re saying NoTricksZone put up “bogus” statistics?

    2. Kurt in Switzerland

      David Appell,

      Have you actually read a Sovacool ‘study’ on avian mortality ostensibly caused by various energy generation technologies?

      Please do so. When you’ve finished, proceed to the next question.

      Can you honestly say to yourself that his analysis / methodology are sound?

      Face palm.

      1. David Appell

        Yes, I read Sovacool’s paper.

        I take it you haven’t. Yet you dismiss it anyway.

        1. Kurt in Switzerland

          No, David.

          I’ve read several Sovacool studies. For the most part, they are an embarrassment to science. They demonstrate the scientific rigor of a High School Term Paper (given a failing grade by his science teacher).

          For example, Sovacool likes to use fictive bird deaths. He needs to start counting carcasses instead. For starters. From there, it only gets worse. So yes, Sovacool is an author whom I now dismiss outright; he is in effect a shill for big wind.

          Try finding another source if you wish to assess wind turbines’ effect on avian life.

  4. crosspatch

    “Scrupulous green energy dealmakers”

    Did you perhaps mean “Unscrupulous”?

  5. yonason

    Warmism = the Political Crack of Nations

    It does to nations what the drug crack does to people. This before and after pic of hardcore crack users shows their fate. Now extrapolate that to nations which subscribe to warmism.

  6. Mervyn

    These climate change charlatans dared accuse the oil, gas and coal industries of crimes against the climate. What do we call these green projects? Crimes against the environmental movement?