Considering “counterfactuals”
Erin Greeson, REWI Director of Outreach & Communications
Like all human activity, renewable energy development has some adverse impacts on wildlife. The question is: how much? And how do we know? Equally important to consider: what kind of future can we expect for wildlife in the absence of renewable energy? Better understanding relationships between renewables, wildlife, ecosystems and climate change is key.
A team of scientists is urging the global community to address these crucial questions. In a Frontiers in Conservation Science editorial, “Counterfactuals to Assess Effects to Species and Systems from Renewable Energy Development,” authors highlight that intersections between climate change, renewable energy development and wildlife conservation haven’t been robustly studied. This presents a big opportunity. Where there are knowledge gaps to fill, sound science can answer questions to inform decision making and solutions moving forward. Quite literally speaking, life on Earth depends on it.
We’re getting a picture of what our world looks like in the absence of climate solutions. On local community levels, all around the world, we’re seeing unprecedented changes in weather and living conditions affecting our lives and natural world. Record-breaking droughts, heat waves, wildfires, floods, hurricanes and avalanches are causing volatile conditions, upending our safety, security, economic stability and quality of life. While we can easily sense changes affecting us, it’s harder to see what’s happening to wildlife. What we don’t know can hurt us; our health as humans is inextricably tied to the well-being of ecosystems and other living things.
Currently, Earth’s wildlife is threatened on extraordinary scales; objectively speaking, we’re talking mass extinction. In 2019, before attention was consumed by a global pandemic, the UN reported that up to 1 million species are at risk of extinction by 2050. Causes include human impacts like habitat loss, pollution, species exploitation and climate change. The report warned, “nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history — and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely.” It cited, “since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled, raising average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius – with climate change already impacting nature from the level of ecosystems to that of genetics – impacts expected to increase over the coming decades, in some cases surpassing the impact of land and sea use change and other drivers.” What does this mean for people and our planet? Steps we take today will shape Earth’s future for all living things. The question is, which potential outcome will we manifest?
As the IPCC warned, “it’s now or never” to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. Through reports detailing the science, realities and consequences of the climate crisis, it made clear that now is the time to go all-in on solutions to avoid worst case scenarios. The “Mitigation of Climate Change” report offered a solutions playbook to Earth’s biggest problem. This includes the need to accelerate the clean energy transition by making unprecedented investments in wind, solar, storage and other renewable energy solutions. To meet net zero carbon electricity generation goals within an urgent timeline, we anticipate needing to expand large-scale wind and solar deployment annually by 40 – 60 GW. While what this means for wildlife must be studied and responsibly addressed, climate change and fossil fuel impacts are also crucial to examine.
“Counterfactual” thinking is an approach to analysis, such as wildlife impact assessment, in which different scenarios and likely outcomes are considered, for example, one in which an action is taken and measured, and one in which no action, or an alternative, is taken, and what those outcomes might look like. So in the case of renewables and wildlife, what might our world look like if we shift to 100% clean, renewable fuel sources? On the other hand, what might happen to wildlife and ecosystems if we continue status-quo, on our fossil fuel-heavy trajectory?
Advocating a comprehensive scientific assessment of such potential scenarios, the “Counterfactuals” co-authors team has a hypothesis: “We expect that if such an analysis were performed, most species would be more adversely affected by predicted climate change than by fatalities associated with expansion of renewables, but for a few species, the predicted impacts of renewables would be greater than those of climate change.”
While science around climate impacts is increasingly abundant, science addressing intersections between climate change, renewable energy and wildlife species is under-explored and an opportunity for the scientific community. With a robust body of sound scientific knowledge, decision makers in public and private sectors could make precise, better informed policy decisions to scale and accelerate renewables development while also protecting wildlife.
“A counterfactual analysis would provide a context in which managers could explicitly link climate, renewables, and wildlife population dynamics, generating a more nuanced understanding of their interaction and thus a path forward for solving problems in existing legal frameworks.”
At Renewable Energy Wildlife Institute (REWI), we conduct collaborative research that focuses on the pressing need to dramatically increase wind and solar energy while also supporting wildlife conservation goals. Expanding clean energy is a leading factor to mitigate environmental damage caused by climate change. Together, partnering across sectors, there’s an opportunity to better understand the possible trajectories for species in the presence and/or absence of renewable energy expansion and climate pollutant mitigation. The goal is rapid renewable energy development while minimizing ecosystem impact and conserving wildlife. If we act now to identify the answers we need through science, we can advance one of the most promising facets of the solutions playbook, benefiting millions of species, including humankind.
***
Read the editorial piece in Frontiers in Conservation Science, “Counterfactuals to Assess Effects to Species and Systems from Renewable Energy Development”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2022.844286/full
Authors: Todd E. Katzner 1*, Taber D. Allison 2,, Jay E. Diffendorfer 3, Amanda M. Hale 4, Eric J. Lantz 5 Paul S. Veers 5
- 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Boise, ID, United States
- 2 Renewable Energy Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC, United States
- 3 U.S. Geological Survey, Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center, Denver, CO, United States
- 4 Biology Department, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, United States
- 5 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, United States
Image credit: Enel, Aurora Annandale, VA