The benefits of clean energy for people are clear: It provides job growth, fewer pollution-related health risks, and cheaper energy. Renewable energy such as wind and solar is also faster to deploy than natural gas power plants, providing relief from rising electricity costs. Less commonly discussed is how clean energy can benefit nature. Fossil fuels, climate change, and associated pollution pose an existential threat to wildlife across the globe. Clean energy requires less land to be mined, results in less pollution, and alleviates the massive impacts of climate change on species.
States and local communities will make many of the most influential decisions over how and where the clean energy build-out will unfold. Given the repeated attacks on clean energy by the federal government, it is more important than ever for states and localities to take a strong, proactive stance on how to rapidly build out clean energy in a way that benefits communities and wildlife. Also important will be building out the suite of creative low-to-no-cost solutions in the face of reduced federal funding to states to support these efforts.
Smart policy can manage trade-offs
On the whole, wildlife experts generally agree that the risks to nature from clean energy are outweighed by the massive impacts of continued fossil fuel usage. That being said, the clean energy transition will have local-scale impacts. Renewable energy will be a new visible land use in places that may not have had energy development previously. This can create conflicts with nature and with local communities. Building projects and necessary roads can remove, fragment, or deter wildlife from habitats. Given the fact that habitat loss is a primary driver of species decline, these land use impacts must be managed to protect biodiversity. Collisions with wind turbine blades can also cause bird and bat mortalities that, while small compared with other threats such as cats and buildings, can compound threats to endangered populations. These potential impacts can be significantly minimized by placing renewable energy projects in low-conflict areas and performing other best practices. Also, much of the land footprint of renewables is compatible with other uses such as habitat and agriculture. To capitalize on that, environmental advocates should create a proactive vision for supporting the rapid build-out of good projects using best practices to support nature, wildlife, and communities. Bad policy can mean more harm to wildlife and habitats as well as more community opposition. Together, these things will make projects harder and slower to build, preserving the fossil fuel status quo.
Changing the narrative: A fast clean energy transition that does not come at the expense of nature
The narrative from the Trump administration often pits nature against renewable energy expansion. It has exploited misinformation around wind turbine risks to whales and birds to carry out attacks against the wind industry at the expense of clean energy and jobs. However, this is a false choice: Clean energy and nature-positive policies can work in tandem. There are ways to minimize the impact of a build-out on nature while also making it easier and faster to transition to clean energy.
Successful examples of state conservation alongside clean energy build-out could inspire other state action, create a model for federal conservation policies, and grow support for a responsible build-out strategy in the environmental community. Below are four strategies that states have used to reduce land-use conflicts. None of these solutions will be sufficient on their own the United States will need a combined, holistic approach in order to build the clean energy future needed. This article is the beginning of a series of reports examining these strategies in more depth and investigating how states across the country are successfully putting them to work.
Enabling siting on low-conflict lands and discouraging or requiring higher standards for development in sensitive areas
How can state decision-makers push development to the most sustainable places and avoid sensitive or unique areas?
As states scale up clean energy, proactive siting policies are key to ensuring that this growth does not come at the expense of sensitive ecosystems, cultural sites, or working lands. Proactive state planning and community engagement policies can help identify areas of ecological or cultural significance where development should be avoided. State incentive and regulatory policies can also strengthen protections by requiring review of wildlife impacts and making it harder to build in riskier places. Together, good policy can help guide development toward low-conflict areas while protecting critical habitats and unique landscapes.
Importantly, avoiding harm and only saying “no” has not allowed the United States to build at the speed necessary to avoid major climate impacts: Policymakers also need to say “yes” to the right projects in the right places. The large opportunity to repurpose previously disturbed lands such as landfills, mine lands, and contaminated areas—as well as unproductive farmland and rooftops—is a good example of this. While these types of projects will not eliminate the need for utility-scale development in undeveloped areas, removing regulatory, informational, and financial barriers to building on disturbed lands can help take pressure off more sensitive areas while providing benefits to local communities. By combining proactive planning with strategic incentives and protective standards, states can steer clean energy projects toward sites that maximize benefits while minimizing impacts.
Encouraging technologies and practices to reduce impacts of renewables on nature
How can states reduce the amount of land taken up by clean energy and other effects on wildlife?
Adjustments to how renewables are constructed and operated can reduce land use and minimize impacts on birds, bats, and other species. In lieu of federal action, states can help encourage and address barriers to adoption of technologies and practices that reduce likelihood of collisions, habitat loss, and other impacts on wildlife. Expanding battery storage, transmission, advanced grid technologies, and sources of clean power with small footprints such as nuclear or geothermal energy can also help meet demand while minimizing the amount of land needed for the build-out of new energy generation and related infrastructure.
Supporting local decision-making and effective use of community benefits
How can state decision-makers reduce opposition to development and maximize benefits for host communities?
A significant hurdle to development is that the areas that are technically and economically feasible and lower conflict may not be locations that community members support. Community opposition and restrictive local laws have become two of the primary barriers to clean energy growth. To address this, developers need to ensure that projects are designed to avoid impacts to culturally or economically important places and that communities receive concrete benefits from projects that affect them. At the same time, states should also ensure local decision-makers have enough information and support to effectively evaluate policies and projects, understand the types of local benefits they can advocate for, and consider reforms to ensure that projects that have benefits for whole communities or for society as a whole are not blocked by a vocal minority.
Maximizing benefits for nature
Where impacts are unavoidable, how do state decision-makers ensure ecosystem functions are recovered and look for creative opportunities to improve conservation outcomes?
With the right policies, mitigation can become a tool not just for compliance, but also for meaningful conservation gains. States can strengthen compensatory mitigation—the process of offsetting negative impacts to natural resources—by complementing existing federal requirements and addressing region-specific needs. State policymakers should investigate opportunities to make requirements more predictable and should look into providing more mitigation options for developers. Lastly, policymakers could look to incorporate creative ways to achieve nature gains into projects. For example, states could encourage developers to include funding or other support for conservation or restoration actions as part of negotiations for getting clean energy projects approved. States can also invest in research and pilot programs that explore how renewable energy facilities might better support habitat recovery or coexist with wildlife.
Conclusion
Renewable energy can be built to support, not conflict with, conservation goals. In the coming years, states and local decision-makers will have an especially important role to play in shaping where and how the clean energy build-out happens and in providing models for future federal policy. With careful policy choices, the clean energy transition can offer opportunities for conservation while also lessening the massive, harmful effects fossil fuels have on nature and communities.
Alia Hidayat is Senior Policy Analyst, Conservation Policy.
