Case Against Renewable Energy

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah I noticed it said it was merely affiliated or unaffiliated or some such. Also TED presenters contradict each other all the time, so its not like their presentations are official doctrines.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-TED-and-TEDx

 

[dianaiad]

Btw, I enjoy your posts because they're full of passion seriously

So, let's see. These are your solutions:


and


Put detection chips in condors and avoid migration areas. Anything else?

Let's see...what is being researched?

using different colors on the vanes to discourage birds from deliberately targeting them (they do...the pure white vanes attract birds, who go for the bright stuff, since bright stuff normally attracts insects). You mention siting...and that seems to be the most important thing. Before installing windfarms, a study needs to be done of migratory patterns to see if those will be disrupted unduly. Mountain passes and wetlands are Bad Ideas, as are ocean based windfarms too close to a coast. Mountains and wide valleys seem to be better, as long as the farms don't fill the valleys entirely, or cover the mountains completely. Radar systems which can identify large flocks and shut the system down before one arrives. Different turbine designs...the ones that have the vanes close to the post...or no blades at all. THIS one is really promising in a number of areas. If they work, they are a win/win/win for everybody:

Or this one:

Which I happen to think is incredibly ugly, but....the company that built it has a 'windfarm' using these things on a primary nesting site, an island off Hawaii, that is used by a very endangered species of gull. The gulls don't seem to mind it a bit. This design is especially good for areas with low windflow, making wind produced energy more accessible to more people.

Maybe we could decorate it somehow?

Whatever...windfarms CAN be made safer for wildlife; the first picture, above, is an example of wind turbines that is not only more efficient than bladed windmills, but cheaper to install, cheaper to maintain, and because of their design, one can install many more of them in the same space as traditional bladed turbines.

Individual bladed windmills don't seem to be a problem. Birds can, and do, avoid them. it's only when they are grouped together in square mile areas that they become a problem.

Oh...and don't swallow the propaganda of the wind energy people completely. I mean, really...how many of you would take the tobacco growers as a good source for information on lung cancer?

Turns out that, while the claim made by the proponents of wind energy is that the loss of wildlife due to wind farms is negligible...or at least, acceptable in comparison to everything else that kills them, that's not, quite, true. Here is a report that tells us that birds do not, as claimed, fly above windfarms when they migrate; they actually fly right at the things. USFWS: Avian Radar Project - Migrants and Wind Power

Notice; that study isn't by an opponent of wind power. Not by the Audobon Society. It's a government radar study .

So I really am having problems understanding the attitudes of the critics in here; they seem to be so passionate about global warming and wanting to get rid of fossil fuels (except of course for their own cars, I bet..) but are quite blase' about the damage done to wildlife by their own pet methods.

But nothing is perfect. Pretending that windpower and/or solar power has no problems that need addressing is every bit as short sighted as claiming that the fireplaces in London didn't hurt the air.

I am, frankly, both surprised.....and yet not surprised. I had hoped that some of you actually were interested in the ecology of the planet and the good of the wildlife around you, when in reality those who have responded to me have proven that they are only interested in their political rah rah partisanship. you want wind power? Well, so do I. I love solar power; I have panels on my roof. I'm all for good air quality and taking care of the creatures that share the planet with me.

So...why aren't those who are arguing with me here thinking about ways to make wind power safer, instead of insulting me because that's what I want to do?

 

[dianaiad]

True, and some suggestions here are to avoid building them in migration areas and maybe put some tags on them.

So now that politics are out of the way and science is informing us, what are we going to do about the mass amount of wild cats and domestic cats that are literally causing the extinction of birds?

We are not in control of wild cats. charlie. Sometimes nature just has to be nature. We don't control how much CO2 ruminants produce when they fart. We aren't in control of predatory habits...and when we try to be, and eliminate top predators to protect their prey, we cause all sorts of trouble. Look up the history of the wolf and Yellowstone National Park, for instance, to see what happens when we interfere.

But we ARE in control of the sort of windmills we design, and where we put them. One thing is true; the human race is extremely powerful. We can, and have, exterminated entire species. Natural predators actually strengthen species, in the long run.

Unless of course they have been transplanted into areas they don't belong....by us.

But cats have been around, pretty much everywhere, for a very, very long time. Except in isolated places like, oh, New Zealand or Hawaii, we are not responsible for the cats, and getting rid of them would be counterproductive.

So, even though I strongly suspect that your objection is facetious, I thought I'd give a logical answer anyway. Because I'm in the mood.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes fair points. It is a tragedy of our time that politically charged debates nowadays always get turned into tribal shouting matches between extreme positions, in which the most cynical motives are assumed.

Wind power, like all electricity generation, has its environmental side-effects. That does not stop it being a valuable part of the renewables mix, as we search for ways to reduce our CO2 output, which is by far the most serious environmental problem from energy use. Nuclear will definitely as need to be part of the mix as well. However nuclear has a bit of a history of playing games with its costs, especially the costs of disposing safely of spent fuel.

The challenge with renewables is their intermittent nature. Nuclear does not help much here, as it is a baseload power system, not one for turning on and off according to the supply from renewables. But it reduces the dependence on renewables and hence the overall degree of variability in supply.

Solar and wind need either batteries or a peak-shaving system for when they do not generate, such as gas turbines. (Again it is not always clear that the cost of providing the peak-shaving is built into costings of renewables.)

But it seems to me that at this point in history we have to push forward on all these fronts as we try to optimise how best to reduce dependence on coal and oil.

Agreed. But we can't 'push forward' if we don't actually TRY to solve the problems each method poses.

When the whole thing comes down to winning elections, everything gets lost.

 

[exchemist]

Agreed. But we can't 'push forward' if we don't actually TRY to solve the problems each method poses.

When the whole thing comes down to winning elections, everything gets lost.

Oh I agree. We should environmental impact assessments on all these things as we go, so that we do as little damage as we can in the switchover from fossil fuel and learn as much as we can about the trade-offs involved.

I was a bit surprised by your wind farm example. I know that in Shell we had to do environmental impact assessments on all major projects like this. My wife was involved in an LNG terminal project in Baja California, on which I remember they had to do a lot of analysis of the migratory patterns of whales, to see if there was a significant risk of the ships hitting whales on their routes to and from the terminal. But perhaps a wind farm company is less worried about brand image.

 

[charlie sc]

Let's see...what is being researched?

using different colors on the vanes to discourage birds from deliberately targeting them (they do...the pure white vanes attract birds, who go for the bright stuff, since bright stuff normally attracts insects). You mention siting...and that seems to be the most important thing. Before installing windfarms, a study needs to be done of migratory patterns to see if those will be disrupted unduly. Mountain passes and wetlands are Bad Ideas, as are ocean based windfarms too close to a coast. Mountains and wide valleys seem to be better, as long as the farms don't fill the valleys entirely, or cover the mountains completely. Radar systems which can identify large flocks and shut the system down before one arrives. Different turbine designs...the ones that have the vanes close to the post...or no blades at all. THIS one is really promising in a number of areas. If they work, they are a win/win/win for everybody:

Or this one:

Which I happen to think is incredibly ugly, but....the company that built it has a 'windfarm' using these things on a primary nesting site, an island off Hawaii, that is used by a very endangered species of gull. The gulls don't seem to mind it a bit. This design is especially good for areas with low windflow, making wind produced energy more accessible to more people.

Maybe we could decorate it somehow?

Whatever...windfarms CAN be made safer for wildlife; the first picture, above, is an example of wind turbines that is not only more efficient than bladed windmills, but cheaper to install, cheaper to maintain, and because of their design, one can install many more of them in the same space as traditional bladed turbines.

Individual bladed windmills don't seem to be a problem. Birds can, and do, avoid them. it's only when they are grouped together in square mile areas that they become a problem.

Oh...and don't swallow the propaganda of the wind energy people completely. I mean, really...how many of you would take the tobacco growers as a good source for information on lung cancer?

Turns out that, while the claim made by the proponents of wind energy is that the loss of wildlife due to wind farms is negligible...or at least, acceptable in comparison to everything else that kills them, that's not, quite, true. Here is a report that tells us that birds do not, as claimed, fly above windfarms when they migrate; they actually fly right at the things. USFWS: Avian Radar Project - Migrants and Wind Power

Notice; that study isn't by an opponent of wind power. Not by the Audobon Society. It's a government radar study .

So I really am having problems understanding the attitudes of the critics in here; they seem to be so passionate about global warming and wanting to get rid of fossil fuels (except of course for their own cars, I bet..) but are quite blase' about the damage done to wildlife by their own pet methods.

But nothing is perfect. Pretending that windpower and/or solar power has no problems that need addressing is every bit as short sighted as claiming that the fireplaces in London didn't hurt the air.

I am, frankly, both surprised.....and yet not surprised. I had hoped that some of you actually were interested in the ecology of the planet and the good of the wildlife around you, when in reality those who have responded to me have proven that they are only interested in their political rah rah partisanship. you want wind power? Well, so do I. I love solar power; I have panels on my roof. I'm all for good air quality and taking care of the creatures that share the planet with me.

So...why aren't those who are arguing with me here thinking about ways to make wind power safer, instead of insulting me because that's what I want to do?

This is the most research someone has done when arguing vs me. Thank you. Usually, people will need to do some research or I utterly annihilate, with a sledge-hammer, any sense of an argument they have. I'm curious how cost effective these methods are and are they difficult to implement?

We are not in control of wild cats. charlie. Sometimes nature just has to be nature. We don't control how much CO2 ruminants produce when they fart. We aren't in control of predatory habits...and when we try to be, and eliminate top predators to protect their prey, we cause all sorts of trouble. Look up the history of the wolf and Yellowstone National Park, for instance, to see what happens when we interfere.

But we ARE in control of the sort of windmills we design, and where we put them. One thing is true; the human race is extremely powerful. We can, and have, exterminated entire species. Natural predators actually strengthen species, in the long run.

Unless of course they have been transplanted into areas they don't belong....by us.

But cats have been around, pretty much everywhere, for a very, very long time. Except in isolated places like, oh, New Zealand or Hawaii, we are not responsible for the cats, and getting rid of them would be counterproductive.

So, even though I strongly suspect that your objection is facetious, I thought I'd give a logical answer anyway. Because I'm in the mood.

This however was not so thought out.

We are not in control of wild cats

My mistake, I misquoted. I meant free-range domestic cats or un-owned cats as stated in this study The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States

Sometimes nature just has to be nature.

This is completely nonsensical from nearly every perspective. First, we vastly influence the population of cats, their natural predators and their environment. May I remind you, the human race tends to love cats. Yet, no one seems to think of the implication of feeding,not chasing away or culling cats. As though there's no implication when we allow them to do whatever they want. Second, it seems like you're logically inferring a difference between nature and us. However, this argument is incredibly difficult to make, since one can easily say whatever we do is a part of nature. So, wind-farms, natural. There. done.

But we ARE in control of the sort of windmills we design, and where we put them. One thing is true; the human race is extremely powerful. We can, and have, exterminated entire species.

We are also in control of free-range cats, but people don't seem to care. It may be because people are illogical and following their emotions, even though they're detrimental for birds. You're willing to brush this aside and show similar characteristics you were distasteful of in this entire thread.

Natural predators actually strengthen species, in the long run.

This is absolute nonsense for this argument. Are you talking about evolution/natural selection or something else? I could just argue they'll die out before they can adapt. If they can adapt, great. If they can't, too bad. Then I can use this same line of argument to defend wind-turbines or anything that kills birds. They'll adapt or they wont. Too bad.

But cats have been around, pretty much everywhere, for a very, very long time. Except in isolated places like, oh, New Zealand or Hawaii, we are not responsible for the cats, and getting rid of them would be counterproductive.

So, even though I strongly suspect that your objection is facetious, I thought I'd give a logical answer anyway. Because I'm in the mood.

While I do find this lind of discussion slightly humorous it more displays how much cognitive bias is going on. There's clearly a much higher threat, I'm talking in the billions, against birds, vs wind-turbines. However, no one seems to want to talk about it. So, while you are and others planning to help birds via the threat of wind-turbine, cats(a species we propagate) are killing billions upon billions of birds. I suspect because people like cats so they disassociate or go into some denial about the problem. You people are so illogical. You fervent and passionate stance disappears when it comes into conflict with something else you like.

We are responsible for cats. We breed them, we let them out, we feed the free-range cats and let them do whatever they want. No one considers the ecological implication because they're cute and display anthropomorphic qualities of babies.

 

[exchemist]

This is the most research someone has done when arguing vs me. Thank you. Usually, people will need to do some research or I utterly annihilate, with a sledge-hammer, any sense of an argument they have. I'm curious how cost effective these methods are and are they difficult to implement?



This however was not so thought out.



My mistake, I misquoted. I meant free-range domestic cats or un-owned cats as stated in this study The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States



This is completely nonsensical from nearly every perspective. First, we vastly influence the population of cats, their natural predators and their environment. May I remind you, the human race tends to love cats. Yet, no one seems to think of the implication of feeding,not chasing away or culling cats. As though there's no implication when we allow them to do whatever they want. Second, it seems like you're logically inferring a difference between nature and us. However, this argument is incredibly difficult to make, since one can easily say whatever we do is a part of nature. So, wind-farms, natural. There. done.



We are also in control of free-range cats, but people don't seem to care. It may be because people are illogical and following their emotions, even though they're detrimental for birds. You're willing to brush this aside and show similar characteristics you were distasteful of in this entire thread.



This is absolute nonsense for this argument. Are you talking about evolution/natural selection or something else? I could just argue they'll die out before they can adapt. If they can adapt, great. If they can't, too bad. Then I can use this same line of argument to defend wind-turbines or anything that kills birds. They'll adapt or they wont. Too bad.



While I do find this lind of discussion slightly humorous it more displays how much cognitive bias is going on. There's clearly a much higher threat, I'm talking in the billions, against birds, vs wind-turbines. However, no one seems to want to talk about it. So, while you are and others planning to help birds via the threat of wind-turbine, cats(a species we propagate) are killing billions upon billions of birds. I suspect because people like cats so they disassociate or go into some denial about the problem. You people are so illogical. You fervent and passionate stance disappears when it comes into conflict with something else you like.

We are responsible for cats. We breed them, we let them out, we feed the free-range cats and let them do whatever they want. No one considers the ecological implication because they're cute and display anthropomorphic qualities of babies.

What "people" are you talking about here?

 

[charlie sc]

What "people" are you talking about here?

How vastly more dangerous cats are against birds. U.S. cats kill up to 3.7 billion birds, 20.7 billion small mammals annually

Billions(cats) vs 20 thousands(windfarms) of bird deaths is USA alone. You can see the difference, right?

 

[exchemist]

How vastly more dangerous cats are against birds. U.S. cats kill up to 3.7 billion birds, 20.7 billion small mammals annually

Billions(cats) vs 20 thousands(windfarms) of bird deaths is USA alone. You can see the difference, right?

No I was asking what "people" you were referring to in your post.

 

[charlie sc]

No I was asking what "people" you were referring to in your post.

People who seem to ignore a more serious problem on the same issue in favour of something less serious, because they're emotionally invested and cannot display or utilise objectivity.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh I agree. We should environmental impact assessments on all these things as we go, so that we do as little damage as we can in the switchover from fossil fuel and learn as much as we can about the trade-offs involved.

I was a bit surprised by your wind farm example. I know that in Shell we had to do environmental impact assessments on all major projects like this. My wife was involved in an LNG terminal project in Baja California, on which I remember they had to do a lot of analysis of the migratory patterns of whales, to see if there was a significant risk of the ships hitting whales on their routes to and from the terminal. But perhaps a wind farm company is less worried about brand image.

Of course it is. It already has the support of the politically correct, who do not want to see problems in their preferred methods of producing energy.

 

[dianaiad]

This is the most research someone has done when arguing vs me. Thank you. Usually, people will need to do some research or I utterly annihilate, with a sledge-hammer, any sense of an argument they have. I'm curious how cost effective these methods are and are they difficult to implement?



This however was not so thought out.

(snip to end)

ah. OK, I get you.

We are NOT in control of cats. If we were, then the multitude of 'spay everything" campaigns, the absolute laws against getting unspayed cats from shelters, etc., would actually be working. We aren't in control of cats once they are in the wild (and uncatchable) any more than we are of New York City rats.

We are, however, in control of the sort of windmills we build and place. Why should we neglect solving the problems we can because of problems we can't?

Your argument here is illogical, and irrelevant. It is equivalent to arguing that because we can't cure Multiple Myeloma, we SHOULDN'T work on a cure for glaucoma. these are different problems requiring different solutions. You are advocating that we give up on everything because we have problems with one thing.

Or to put this another way...if cats are that destructive to bird populations, then we should save them from anything else we CAN save them from, not decide that if we can't save them from the feral cats, we shouldn't save them from anything else, either.

 

[charlie sc]

We aren't in control of cats once they are in the wild (and uncatchable) any more than we are of New York City rats.

Culling, perhaps? Let it be illegal to let cats out of the home. Oh, and don't just assume that aren't catch-able.

We are, however, in control of the sort of windmills we build and place. Why should we neglect solving the problems we can because of problems we can't?

This is not what I'm saying. If you really care about the extinction of bird species and bird deaths I'd suggest you don't neglect this problem either. lol This is what I'm getting at.

Your argument here is illogical, and irrelevant. It is equivalent to arguing that because we can't cure Multiple Myeloma, we SHOULDN'T work on a cure for glaucoma. these are different problems requiring different solutions. You are advocating that we give up on everything because we have problems with one thing.

Again, this is not what I'm saying. However, if one disease has killed billions while another is in the thousands, I'd assume priority of effort and resources would be weighed based on the threat. This doesn't seem to be the case and it's clear why. You and other have cognitive biases and you display the same qualities you strongly loathed.

Or to put this another way...if cats are that destructive to bird populations, then we should save them from anything else we CAN save them from, not decide that if we can't save them from the feral cats, we shouldn't save them from anything else, either.

They ARE destructive to bird populations. Look at the scientific consensus, which you yourself implored people to look at. However, the problem is domestic free-range cats. Here is quote from the study -"Domestic cats (Felis catus) are predators that humans have introduced globally1,2 and that have been listed among the 100 worst non-native invasive species in the world"

 

[exchemist]

Of course it is. It already has the support of the politically correct, who do not want to see problems in their preferred methods of producing energy.

What is the name of the company?

 

[wandering peacefully]

True, and some suggestions here are to avoid building them in migration areas and maybe put some tags on them.

So now that politics are out of the way and science is informing us, what are we going to do about the mass amount of wild cats and domestic cats that are literally causing the extinction of birds?

Good question. My feeling is one which no one agrees with and I understand why. I don't feel we have the resources to keep domesticated pets for our entertainment. Of course , no one is going to not have domesticated pets so that is done before the start line. And it's not because I don't love pets because I do.

As far as all other species? Here is some info on those:

The biggest drivers of global biodiversity loss are hunting, harvesting, and the conversion of natural habitats for agriculture, urbanisation, and other industrial activity. However, our understanding of where these ‘threats’ actually impact sensitive species is extremely limited across Earth. Here, we map the distribution of threats within the known ranges of 5,457 terrestrial birds, mammals, and amphibians globally. We map only those threats within a species range that are known to specifically endanger that species. We show that threats are extensive across the majority of species’ ranges, severely limiting the area within which species can survive. Concerningly, 1,237 species (almost one-quarter of those assessed) are impacted by threats across >90% of their distribution, and 395 species are impacted by threats across their entire range. These species will almost certainly face extinction without conservation intervention to remove threats. We identify global hotspots of impacted species richness and also ‘coolspots’ that act as refuges from threats, providing essential information for conservation planning and action.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000158
Citation: Allan JR, Watson JEM, Di Marco M, O’Bryan CJ, Possingham HP, Atkinson SC, et al. (2019) Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates. PLoS Biol 17(3): e3000158. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000158

 

[Ponder This]

It seems like the video is advocating Nuclear Energy as our best energy production method.

In other words, even if you think Wind, Solar Energy, or other renewable energy options are good options, the video appears to be suggesting that Nuclear Energy is simply a better option.

I'm not sure if it is.

 

[dianaiad]

Culling, perhaps? Let it be illegal to let cats out of the home. Oh, and don't just assume that aren't catch-able.


This is not what I'm saying. If you really care about the extinction of bird species and bird deaths I'd suggest you don't neglect this problem either. lol This is what I'm getting at.


Again, this is not what I'm saying. However, if one disease has killed billions while another is in the thousands, I'd assume priority of effort and resources would be weighed based on the threat. This doesn't seem to be the case and it's clear why. You and other have cognitive biases and you display the same qualities you strongly loathed.


They ARE destructive to bird populations. Look at the scientific consensus, which you yourself implored people to look at. However, the problem is domestic free-range cats. Here is quote from the study -"Domestic cats (Felis catus) are predators that humans have introduced globally1,2 and that have been listed among the 100 worst non-native invasive species in the world"

charlie, we are talking, in this thread, about wind farms. Specifically. If we bring up every OTHER danger that birds face, we won't get anything done at all, with any of those problems.

I recently attended a conference on Multiple Myeloma. It was an online thing, where experts on this specific bone marrow cancer gave talks on various new treatment options, from CAR-T cell to autologous bone marrow transplants, to thalidomide derivatives and analogues, and the possibility of a cure in the future (there is no cure right now). it was a long, intense and productive workshop.

Nobody argued that they shouldn't be addressing treatment options for Multiple Myeloma because people in third world nations weren't vaccinating their kids against measles. There were 110,000 measles deaths world wide in 2017. In that same year, about 98,500 people died of MM...but nobody decided that since more kids died from measles than old farts died from MM, that those who concentrated on MM were somehow biased or wrong not to worry about measles.

....and I am rather glad of that, personally, being one of those old farts myself.

Because some of us concentrate on one specific problem, it does not mean that we don't think any other problems 'count.'

BTW, I have six cats in my house (only one actually belongs to me, mind you) and every one of them is either spayed or neutered. So is my dog. Content yourself with the thought that while I may concentrate on other problems, I am at least not contributing to the one you are concentrating upon.

Oh....and if you begin a thread about the danger of feral cats, I won't barge into it with claims about how you shouldn't worry about them when windmills kill California Condors.

 

[dianaiad]

Good question. My feeling is one which no one agrees with and I understand why. I don't feel we have the resources to keep domesticated pets for our entertainment.

"our entertainment?"

I think that term is going to cause you problems. I don't know any pet owner who thinks that 'entertainment' is the primary..or even secondary...reason for having a pet.

Just interjecting here; that phrase caught my eye.

 

[dianaiad]

What is the name of the company?

Roscoe is really good at sliding along....

the ones here in California (Roscoe is in Texas, which is a whole lot more supportive of new wind farms than California is) are more mindful of wildlife. At least they are NOW. They didn't used to be.

 

[charlie sc]

Good question. My feeling is one which no one agrees with and I understand why. I don't feel we have the resources to keep domesticated pets for our entertainment. Of course , no one is going to not have domesticated pets so that is done before the start line. And it's not because I don't love pets because I do.

Thank god someone with a brain. I'd also argue that it's morally wrong to keep pets as well. Yeah I love pets also and cute cats,etc. However, their main purpose seems to be for entertainment, maternal instincts, avoid loneliness, etc. I'd be curious if, for instance dogs, ever developed self-awareness, they'd go wtf why am I a slave? If I were to ignore any moral argument, which I think are subjective anyway, it's humorous how pet lovers will devotedly defend their pets with passionate vigour and other animals, all the meanwhile they actually own another living being. Anyway, I'm glad your logical side is able to observe illogical side of human behaviour. Most people seem unable to observe how passions or emotions influence our thoughts.

As far as all other species? Here is some info on those:

The biggest drivers of global biodiversity loss are hunting, harvesting, and the conversion of natural habitats for agriculture, urbanisation, and other industrial activity. However, our understanding of where these ‘threats’ actually impact sensitive species is extremely limited across Earth. Here, we map the distribution of threats within the known ranges of 5,457 terrestrial birds, mammals, and amphibians globally. We map only those threats within a species range that are known to specifically endanger that species. We show that threats are extensive across the majority of species’ ranges, severely limiting the area within which species can survive. Concerningly, 1,237 species (almost one-quarter of those assessed) are impacted by threats across >90% of their distribution, and 395 species are impacted by threats across their entire range. These species will almost certainly face extinction without conservation intervention to remove threats. We identify global hotspots of impacted species richness and also ‘coolspots’ that act as refuges from threats, providing essential information for conservation planning and action.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000158Citation: Allan JR, Watson JEM, Di Marco M, O’Bryan CJ, Possingham HP, Atkinson SC, et al. (2019) Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates. PLoS Biol 17(3): e3000158. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000158

Interesting. Thanks