Wind, energy, birds
We talk a lot about goals - personal goals, climate goals, and energy goals. But the truth is, it’s not the goal that gets us where we want to go.
It’s the lifestyle. The process. The daily choices. The mindset.
If we’re serious about sustainability - whether for our own health or the planet’s - we have to think bigger than just hitting targets. We have to live it.
Because focusing on just one part of the system, like energy demand or mental optimization, misses the bigger picture. When we get tunnel vision like that, two things happen:
We're not actually aiming for true wellbeing or sustainability. We're just chasing an outcome, hoping it’ll magically fix everything.
We ignore the significance of the process itself—real change requires shifting behavior and lifestyle, not just checking a box.
This mindset came into focus for me while reading a January 2022 Energy Monitor article by journalist Nick Ferris. In it, he compares the number of birds killed by wind turbines to those killed by cars, cats, and other human activities. His point? That turbines aren’t that bad in comparison. But here’s where the argument breaks down: intention matters.
The pursuit of sustainability - especially on an industrial scale - has to be grounded in objectivity. If we say our goal is to protect the planet, restore ecosystems, and build something genuinely sustainable, then we have to judge our actions by that standard. Otherwise, what are we even doing? Are we just trying to make our impact less bad, or are we trying to undo real damage and do better going forward?
The original comparison assumes that bird deaths from cars or cats are equivalent to those from wind turbines. But here’s the thing: no one drives a car with the goal of hitting birds. And we’re not letting our cats out to hunt sparrows on purpose. These are unintended consequences of unrelated actions.
Wind turbines, on the other hand, are part of a consciously designed system. They’re installed in specific locations, engineered at scale, and promoted as a solution to the climate crisis. When they harm ecosystems - when they kill birds or disrupt habitats - it’s not incidental. It’s the price we’ve accepted for a “greener” solution.
Even Ferris mentions pesticides in his list, which is another interesting inclusion. Because just like with energy infrastructure, pesticide use is often more about increasing profit margins than feeding the world. Natural farming methods and the way supermarkets operate today make that abundantly clear.
So here's the question we need to ask ourselves:
Are we just trying to secure our place in the system - making sure we don’t break it completely? Or are we Willing to do the work of repairing the damage? Are we ready to shift our values and behavior to build something that lasts, not just for us but for the rest of life on this planet?
This is the same challenge we face when we talk about renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. So many people believe they have the perfect solution - clean, green, and ready to save the day. But dig a little deeper (literally), and the story changes. The manufacturing, the mining, the labor conditions - especially in underdeveloped regions - tell a different tale.
It’s not that wind and solar are bad. But they’re not a free pass. They’re not “the answer.” They’re tools. And like all tools, they come with consequences.
If we’re truly committed to sustainability, we can’t just look at how clean the output is - we have to look at the whole system: how it's made, who it impacts, and whether it helps us live in a way that respects and restores the natural world.
Because real sustainability isn’t a destination for us. It’s a way of living.