Translator: Mike Longley Reviewer: Denise RQ
Which do you value more, birds or fish?
"Strange question," you're probably thinking.
Or perhaps, you're utterly offended at the question, thinking,
"How could I possibly value one more than the other?"
Or perhaps you're thinking, "Isn't she an energy economist?
Isn't this supposed to be a talk about energy?"
(Laughter)
So, let me rephrase the question a bit
to make it more about energy, and bear with me on this.
Is hydropower a renewable resource?
I would argue that it is.
After all, the fuel or the water itself is not reduced or used up
in the process of generating power.
And the water is part of an endless, constantly recharging system.
So, hydropower is, at least in my mind, a renewable resource.
And for those of you that put stock or faith
in the Environmental Protection Agency,
I'm pleased to say that they agree.
But wait.
There are actually many people who disagree.
And one of my favorite quotes when it comes to this disagreement
is from a chap named John Seebach
with the environmental group American Rivers.
Now, as Mr. Seebach likes to say,
"Hydropower comes with some pretty significant environmental baggage,"
and it's this environmental baggage
that makes him and so many others reluctant
to call hydropower a renewable resource.
Of course, it's important to know what is meant by "environmental baggage",
and here, it's the impact of dams on fish and water flows.
Now, I would argue that the disagreement is really one of semantics.
After all, the energy is renewable.
The question is really over hydropower’s environmentally friendliness,
particularly, when it comes to fish.
And this is because the science is in, and the science supports this,
showing that where once salmon runs were in the millions
in some of our region's rivers,
they are now but a small fraction of that.
Of course, there are other contributors, such as overfishing.
But the science is in, and it's hard to argue with the science,
and I don't want to argue with the science; I'm an economist.
So I would just leave you and say, because we know the science so well,
we know how to mitigate the impacts.
What if I told you
that wind power kills 368,000 birds per year?
And what if I told you that a recent government study
estimates that wind power will kill 1.4 million birds per year by 2030?
And what if I told you
that many of these birds included protected species,
protected species in our own backyard?
One of our own Pacific Northwest utilities
pled guilty in a U.S. district federal court in Wyoming
to violating the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
after federal investigators found the carcasses
of 38 golden eagles and 336 other protected species.
In its guilty plea, the utility accepted responsibility
for building a wind plant
that it knew would likely result in these deaths.
So which do you value more, fish or birds?
I ask because more and more, I hear people say, in the same breath,
how much they love wind
because it is so wonderfully green and environmentally friendly,
and how they'd prefer to not see any more hydropower built
because of its impact on fish.
But aren't we simply trading the lives of birds for the lives of fish?
And I can hear the counterarguments coming at me.
"Erin, 368,000 birds is not akin to wiping out populations of fish."
True.
But wind is in the dawn of its dominance as an energy source,
whereas hydropower has been around and dominant for over half a century.
"Erin," I can hear you saying,
"cats kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion - billion! - birds per year"
(Laughter)
"and an additional 980 million birds
are killed each year by flying into buildings."
So, I can hear you saying, "Should we get rid of cats, Erin?"
(Laugher)
"Should we get rid of the buildings
that we live in, that we work in,
"that we go to school in?"
Absolutely not.
I'm simply asking you to be mindful
that there are trade-offs, that there's no free lunch,
and that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Solar.
Solar is also killing birds.
At a utility-scale solar installation in the Mojave Desert,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services estimates
that nearly one bird is being killed every two minutes.
So, which do you prefer more, birds or fish?
Be careful, because your choices or your advocacy
could be making you inherently value one more than the other.
And I'm here to tell you
that no zero-emissions renewable energy resource
comes without trade-offs.
And it's not just wildlife.
Wildlife is just the tip of the iceberg.
But this is why I'm an economist, this is why I'm an energy economist,
because I get to explore these trade-offs day in and day out.
Trade-offs such as would you rather have your energy
come from 100% renewable resources,
or would you rather limit your impact on the environment?
Not the same thing,
but that's for another TEDx talk.
(Laughter)
Thank you.
(Applause)