Cats, windows, buildings, airports and cars kill billions of birds annually

I keep hearing this offered as why deploying giant wind turbine mines in environmentally sensitive areas is acceptable.

And also why wind turbines should not be burdened with nets and shields that can make them safer from wildlife impact strikes. Since concerned citizens should first be solving the aforementioned cat, window, car problems to save birds and bats, and then worrying about wind turbines after that.

Now in the case of the premium "high wind yield" deployment areas under seige from the wind industry, such as Nantucket Sound, or Allegheny Mountain ridges - you will notice that there are very few cats, windows, airports, or cars mowing down hapless bird and bat populations right today. Clearly introducing wind turbines will have a major impact on fragile communities of animals that have been surviving in these isolated areas *precisely* because they have not had to endure such human induced stress on them.

See article on bird strike deaths in California: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783693604&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

We need to keep it that way, by rejecting the wind industries insistence that these areas are the only practical locations for their wind energy mines. Fact is we do not need such high yield remote mines. What we need is more holistic micro-energy systems that can be deployed directly at the community level in urban marketplaces. Wind is everywhere, not just in these remote areas. By making devices that are adapted to urban wind patterns we can provide direct solutions that are culturally and environmentally sound.