SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
With countries such as Iceland, Costa Rica, New Zealand, and Norway adopting green energy practices, renewable energy now accounts for a third of the world's power. As this trend continues, more and more countries are looking to offshore energy sources to produce this renewable energy. In an Opinion publishing December 17 in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, researchers identify situations where green technology such as wind turbines, wave energy converters, and other marine renewable energy devices (MREDs) have had negative consequences on marine life.
While the researchers don't want to slow down active responses to climate change, they do encourage those making the decision to implement MREDs into marine habitats to consider the impact of this technology, such as head trauma and hearing loss, on marine animals before beginning construction.
"When people put a wind farm in their back yard, neighbors might complain that it's ugly and want it moved," says first author Andrew Wright, an ocean and ecosystem scientist at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. "So, they think, why not put it off shore where we can't see it and then there's no problems? The assumption there is that it's just an aesthetic problem. But there's a lot more to it."
Journal Reference: Andrew J. Wright, Claryana Araújo-Wang, John Y. Wang, Peter S. Ross, Jakob Tougaard, Robin Winkler, Melissa C. Márquez, Frances C. Robertson, Kayleigh Fawcett Williams, Randall R. Reeves. How ‘Blue’ Is ‘Green’ Energy? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.11.002
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 27 2019, @07:07PM (3 children)
Yep, it's called a cost benefit analysis.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 27 2019, @07:51PM (1 child)
Yes, that's what they call it. Who is to say the analysis is worth a damn? Did the analysts bother to ask anyone outside of the boardrooms about the price? If, for the rest of my life, I can only look out my window and see the brick wall of a neighboring building, then the cost is far, far, FAR too damned high. Whatever benefit I might lose by insisting on it, I will still insist on living out here in the boonies, with nature all around me.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Friday December 27 2019, @10:52PM
Great idea, until others come up with the same idea and things start getting crowded. Particularly if you are in an environmentally sensitive place. One person might live there and with careful consideration, have very limited impact on the surroundings. More and more people means that a point will be reached where no matter how careful, the impact will increase, probably exponentially. While the first person might be very considerate, those following will likely have more and more people that just do not care, and they will go about altering the landscape to match what they are familiar with, without regarding the impact on the original ecosystem.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 28 2019, @01:46AM
But, whose cost? As Star Trek IV pointed out: killing all the humpback whales may end up costing more than we bargained for.
As is more recently being discovered, whale poop is a massive CO2 absorption catalyst. Want to increase the biosequestration of CO2? Not killing one whale can be equated to planting hundreds of trees - the whale poop fertilizes phytoplankton which photosynthesize mass quantities of CO2 into food for the whales, and everything else in the water column.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/