Climate protection vs. nature conservation?
It seems as if renewable energies are bad for our nature, yet they are so important for the climate. Are individual birds, fish or a bit of built-up area really more important than clean energy?
Thinking about climate protection without nature conservation is the wrong approach. Kilowatt hours (KWh) gained are of no benefit to climate protection if the benefits for the climate are lost through the loss of biodiversity. Healthy ecosystems, such as oceans, forests or moors, can make a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Neither does nature conservation work without climate protection and the switch to renewable energies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Biodiversity Council IPBES warn of the irreversible consequences of climate change on ecosystems and the associated loss of species, natural disasters and extreme weather events. If CO2 emissions and temperatures continue to rise as before, nature will lose out anyway - even without the destruction of nature through new technical developments.
Measured in terms of KWh gained or individuals of endangered species saved, it would be more promising for both disciplines on paper to leave the other player out of the equation. This ignores the actual goal, which is to curb global warming. This can only be achieved if climate, environmental, landscape and nature conservation are considered together.
The obstacle here is that neither nature conservationists nor climate protectionists are financing and planning projects, but rather plant operators or energy-producing companies pursuing economic goals. The idea of climate protection makes them look green and the buck stops with nature conservation. Funding policy also plays its part by making it attractive for operators to plan at (less suitable) B locations on the one hand, but not linking any ecological criteria to the allocation of funding on the other.
What is usually completely missing is a discussion about the potential of energy saving. Incentive systems could be used to promote simple measures that would make it unnecessary to build new systems in the first place. However, this awareness and the associated laws are still completely lacking. As long as energy saving is not demanded, energy generation from renewable sources is not sustainable either, because the ever-increasing demand for energy means that fossil fuel plants cannot be shut down. But wasn't that actually the idea behind the energy transition?
Is there a solution?
The solution does not (yet) exist. One important way of avoiding conflicts in advance would be to involve nature conservation organizations in the planning process as early as possible. On the one hand, this applies to the development of legal bases: for example, ecological criteria would have been taken into account in the EAG or technologies would have been prescribed that support the preservation of nature, such as a bird radar, fish ladders, dual use of photovoltaic areas, etc.; on the other hand, this also applies to cooperation in the planning process.
Climate change and the biodiversity crisis are closely linked and mutually reinforcing, which is why true climate protection is only possible if species conservation is also taken into account. The fight against global warming can only succeed if we work together.
Irene Welebil works in the Spatial Planning and Nature Conservation Department of the Austrian Alpine Club and is involved in the critical shaping of the energy transition.
