The recent shutdown of the Bernagues wind farm in Hérault, France, marks a long-overdue reckoning with the lethal impacts of wind energy on wildlife—particularly raptors like the golden eagle. On April 9, 2025, a French court ordered the entire site to cease operations for one year following the confirmed death of a golden eagle, a protected species, that collided with one of the farm’s turbine blades in January 2023. The decision also slapped Energie Renouvelable du Languedoc (ERL), the farm’s operator, with a €200,000 fine, half of which was suspended, and imposed an additional €40,000 fine on the company’s director.

This isn’t just a one-off judicial reaction. It represents a seismic shift in how the French legal system—and perhaps the broader public—are beginning to confront the uncomfortable truth about wind energy’s collateral damage. Despite the Green orthodoxy that surrounds renewables, wind turbines kill birds. And not just any birds. In this case, the victim was the breeding male of a golden eagle pair that had nested just three kilometers from the turbine site, a distance well beyond typical disturbance buffers used in wildlife protection.

Environmental groups hailed the court’s decision as a victory, but the implications go much deeper. For years, bird deaths caused by wind turbines have been ignored, downplayed, or dismissed as unfortunate but tolerable trade-offs in the race toward “net zero.” But the Bernagues case shatters that illusion. Here, a single incident carried enough legal weight to halt energy production for a year—an implicit admission that the risks to protected species may outweigh the supposed benefits of wind energy.

And this isn’t happening in isolation. Another French wind farm in Aumelas was also ordered to suspend operations just two days earlier, along with a €5 million fine against EDF Renewables. Add to this the December 2023 ruling from the Nîmes Court of Appeal ordering the demolition of the Bernagues wind farm for lacking a valid building permit, and a pattern begins to emerge: the renewable energy sector, long shielded from scrutiny, is now being subjected to long-overdue consequences.

What’s changing? In part, a growing recognition—backed by research—that wind farms are not as benign as their PR teams suggest. Two recent studies underline the broader threat to golden eagles. One, in Ecological Applications, shows that annual mortality already exceeds the threshold that eagle populations can sustain. Another, in Biological Conservation, tracks a rise in turbine-related eagle deaths in the western U.S., from 110 in 2013 to 270 in 2024. These are not rounding errors. They are statistical red flags.

And yet, the political and ideological machinery behind wind power continues to roll forward, impervious to facts. The push for “green” energy is not driven by data but by dogma. It’s a crusade rooted in carbon hysteria and the romanticization of renewable energy, regardless of ecological consequences or economic efficiency. Wind power has become the cathedral of the climate faithful, and turbines their spires—never mind the feathered corpses accumulating at their base.

This is not rational policymaking; it’s ideological fixation dressed up as science. If the goal were genuinely to balance human needs with environmental stewardship, the conversation would look very different. We’d be assessing energy sources on their real-world merits—reliability, cost, land use, ecological impact—not blindly throwing subsidies at whichever technology aligns with green slogans.

France’s court system has done what most governments have failed to do: impose real accountability on an industry that’s been operating with impunity. The Bernagues decision should serve as a precedent, not an anomaly. It’s a milestone in holding the wind industry to the same environmental standards it pretends to uphold. And it invites a critical question: if even the eagle—the emblem of nature’s majesty—isn’t safe from the blades of climate dogma, what exactly are we saving?

H/T alexander v

From THE DAILY CALLER

Audrey Streb
Contributor

Within the first months of his second administration, President Donald Trump has prioritized “unleashing” American energy and has already axed several of what he considers to be burdensome regulations on the coal industry, promising it’s “reinvigoration.”

Trump signed an executive order on April 8 to revive the coal industry, and shortly after moved to exempt several coal plants from Biden-era regulations. Though it has become a primary target of many climate activists, coal has been historically regarded as readily available and affordable, and several energy policy experts who spoke with Daily Caller News Foundation believe Trump has the cards necessary to strengthen the industry.

“When utility bills are skyrocketing or blackouts are happening in winter, people are going to want reliable power back,” Amy Cooke, co-founder and president of Always on Energy Research and the director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Center told the DCNF. “The beauty of coal is that it allows for affordable, reliable power, which is absolutely crucial to economic prosperity, and in particular, innovation.” (RELATED: Electricity Prices Have Risen Seven Times Faster Under Biden Than Trump)

“I think the number one, most significant threat to humanity is no power,” Cooke said, adding that coal is a vital contributor to the nation’s “baseload power.”

Following his executive order, Trump in early April granted a two-year exemption for nearly 70 coal plants from a Biden-era rule on air pollution that required them to reduce certain air pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that the move would “bolster coal-fired electricity generation, ensuring that our nation’s grid is reliable, that electricity is affordable for the American people, and that EPA is helping to promote our nation’s energy security.”

Shortly after, skepticism swirled surrounding whether or not the coal industry would be able to experience a revival, and whether it would be economically savvy to pursue one.

Energy generated from burning coal only powers roughly 16% of the U.S., though 40 states are dependent on coal, according to data from America’s Power. Energy generation through coal reached a record low in 2023, a Rhodium Group study reported. In 2021, however, coal was the primary source of energy for 15 states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“We can lead the world in innovation,” Cook told the DCNF, referencing developments in natural gas and nuclear power as beneficial. “But you have to have coal. It has to be part of the mix.”

“It’s insane that we would shut down any base load power right now, when the demand for power is so high,” Cooke added. She further referenced the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s 2024 report and research from Always on Energy Research that have projected rolling blackouts to begin across the U.S. by 2028.

As American energy demand continues to climb, the odds of impending blackouts would increase if the supply fails to grow at the same rate. The push toward renewable energy sources, in addition to stringent environmental regulations approved under former President Joe Biden, may have contributed to the slower growth of energy supply currently being experienced in the U.S. (RELATED: A Major Backer Of Green Energy Admits Again That Solar And Wind Power Alone ‘Can’t Reliably Keep The Lights On’)

Immediately after returning to the White House, Trump declared a national energy emergency, stating that “the integrity and expansion of our Nation’s energy infrastructure” is “an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States’ national and economic security.”

“We looked at it and predict that there will be periods of blackouts of 24 hours or more,” Cook told the DCNF.

She further noted that “the cheapest power is the power you’ve already paid for,” arguing for the continuation of existing coal plants and the reopening of ones that have been closed.

“The only people who think coal is bad are those who view it through the lens of carbon emissions only, and that is no way to do energy policy,” Cooke said, arguing that it is necessary to adopt a “holistic” approach to energy generation, given the nation’s projected energy crisis.

Seen on television in WV after @POTUS signed an Executive Order revitalizing the coal industry: “Miners can wake up today for the first time in a decade and their spouses and families will realize they have a job tomorrow… and hear a president of the country announce that the… pic.twitter.com/DNdcYiVvF6

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 14, 2025

“The American people need more energy, and the Department of Energy is helping to meet this demand by unleashing supply of affordable, reliable, secure energy sources – including coal,” Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an April 9 statement. “Coal is essential for generating 24/7 electricity,” he added, “but misguided policies from previous administrations have stifled this critical American industry. With President Trump’s leadership, we are cutting the red tape and bringing back common sense.”

The president has also said that he envisions greater job opportunities for coal miners with the industry’s expansion, stating during an April 8 press conference that the workers are “really well-deserving and great American patriots.”

“For years, people would just bemoan this industry and decimate the industry for absolutely no reason,” Trump added.

“Miners can wake up today for the first time in a decade and their spouses and families will realize they have a job tomorrow,” reporter Bob Aaron said in a video shared on X. They can “hear a president of the country announce that the war on coal is over.” (RELATED: After Razing Democrats’ Climate Policies, Trump Directs Admin To Unleash ‘Beautiful, Clean’ Coal)

“I really anticipate a revival in the coal industry in the United States under Trump,” David Blackmon, an energy and policy writer who spent 40 years in the oil and gas business told the DCNF. He pointed to the Trump administration loosening restrictions on coal, adding that the Biden administration made it “near impossible” to build new coal plants due to aggressive climate rules.

Under Biden’s signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. prioritized renewable energy generation and subsidization, resulting in a hefty price tag for taxpayers who had to foot the bill for several environmental initiatives, including hundreds of millions of dollars for solar panel construction in some of the nation’s least-sunny locations.

“The cheapest, the most affordable thing to do is to keep our current infrastructure online,” André Béliveau, Senior Manager of Energy Policy at the Commonwealth Foundation, told the DCNF. “Coal remains one of, if not, the most affordable energy source we have.”

“You’re forcing retirement of full-time energy sources and trying to replace them with part-time energy sources, and that’s not going to work,” Béliveau continued, referencing renewable energy avenues such as wind and solar. “We can’t run a full-time economy on part-time energy.”

The Department of Energy did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. The White House referred the DCNF to its fact sheet summarizing the president’s April 8 executive order.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Yes, the paint was peeling off Farage after this one all right. Or was it?

One might think that, as the acting chief architect of the transformation of the UK’s energy system, M. Miliband would deal in hard facts and nothing else. But the evidence of his essay in today’s Observer speaks otherwise. The title of this little piece, a reply that the SoS will never see, is derived from the URL of the Observer essay. I thought it was fitting to use it here.

The essay comes in twelve short paragraphs. I’m going to summarise each, and respond when the mood strikes me.

First paragraph: these are uncertain times, our responsibility to future generations, etc.

Second paragraph:

That is why it is so important that Keir Starmer set out more than three years ago his mission for Britain to become a clean energy superpower.

[There was a snark here about other things that Keir Starmer had opinions about, or a lack of them, three years ago. It was a distraction. You may guess to what it referred. Clue: it’s topical.]

Dropping the PM’s name so early shows a degree of insecurity, I think. Miliband wants to ensure that the PM’s wagon is firmly hitched to the SoS’s horse:

And he has rightly shown a resolute determination to stick to it.

I will pass quickly over the absurdity of proposing that Britain should have a “mission” to become a “clean energy superpower.” Strangely, the expression has been so dulled by use that it almost ceases to shock. Imagine us declaring that we were on a mission to be a superpower of anything else.

The UK’s mission to become an interplanetary exploration superpower

…for example.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Miliband argues) meant that energy prices sky-rocketed, etc. Had we not been a fossil-fuelled nation, this would not have happened; we would have been insulated from the fallout of a new war in Europe. That’s why we need “clean” power by 2030.

I think I’m seeing a flaw in this line of argument already. Or twelve. But let’s let M. Miliband go on, to see whether or not he can dig himself out of a hole.

Paragraph 3:

…the government sought and won a mandate at the last election for clean power…

According to parliament.uk, the UK’s electorate in July 2024 was 48,224,212. Of that number, 9,708,716 people voted for the present crop of idiots. The mandate they therefore obtained consists of 20.1% of the available votes. Don’t be so churlish, Jit! I hear you cry. You’re right. They won fair and square by the rules. But winning a mandate for “clean” power? Everyone up and down the land knows that ain’t it. They won a mandate, or least-lost a mandate, for not being the Tories. End of conversation. And by appearances, Labour have already frittered away the modicum of good will they came into power with. Seldom has a new government become hostage to the next election so soon after obtaining such an overwhelming mandate. Kof. Splutter.

…take back control of our energy… the only route to true energy security, etc

Miliband asserts that “clean” energy provides “true” energy security, but that fossil fuels do not. And it is an assertion, rather than a reasoned argument. Trying to turn it into an argument, I get: We are not self-sufficient in fossil fuels. Our energy system relies on fossil fuels. Therefore, our energy system is insecure.

But it is obvious that the same reasoning applies to wind and solar power. Except that it’s worse. We are not self-sufficient in wind and solar. In fact, we rely on a geopolitical rival, a country that a functioning moral compass would steer us by without entering port, for our wind and solar. Whereas, our gas presently comes from the U.S. and Norway. And we have gas under our feet, that we are not allowed to use. And the wind installations are at the end of giant extension leads, that a passing ship could ruin “accidentally on purpose.” We are exchanging one form of international dependence for a different form, a worse one. Some guy proposes a vast solar array at the edge of Africa, and an even longer extension lead, to bring sunshine here. If this is a resilient power arrangement, I would like to see an example of a vulnerable one. And Miliband acknowledges, in this very scribbling of his, that we will still need oil and gas “for some time to come.” Including from the North Sea. The place he has banned new licenses for.

Paragraph 4 brings in the social justice element to the necessity of Net Zero. It’s what I think will be the last ditch of the enthusiast – when all the other arguments have turned to dust and blown away, they will still be pleading for Net Zero because of one sort of inequality or another (see Friederike Otto in John’s piece today, as an example). Readers probably know what I’m going to say here, which is that the role of government should be to make power as cheap as possible, not to make it as expensive as possible as a side effect of “green” posturing. Cheap power is good for poor people.

Next, paragraph 5, and Net Zero is still the “growth opportunity of the 21^st century” or something. Yeh, for our geopolitical rivals who are selling us the necessary paraphernalia to make our attempt at it. The green economy is growing fast! Yes, Ed, it’s because your government is hosing money at it. The companies investing their own money know that they will make good returns, based on the rules you set, which come at the expense of your citizens.

Paragraph 6, and we find that the planning process is being speeded up to enable “green” things to take root in the landscape and industrialise it. What he means here is that local people can no longer validly refuse such developments. Well, they can refuse, but Ed will countermand them. All on his 20.1% “mandate.” Meanwhile, as we have seen lately, people are opposing such developments up and down the land. Unfortunately, they are caveating their opposition with “I’m in favour of renewable developments, but Place X (where I happen to live) is not the right location for this project, because BLAH BLAH BLAH.”

Paragraph 7 is a curious one. Ed sings Keir’s praises re: protecting our steel industry. What was it he said? It was something about a “muscular” industrial policy. I’m sure the Observer’s Chinese readers got a little chortle out of that line. And of course we look across to Port Talbot and ask, where was this muscle not so long ago? It was nowhere. Scunthorpe? Suddenly the dying lion rouses itself for one last growl. This is pathetic.

Paragraph 8, and the virtues of Great British Energy. Some schools are going to get lower energy bills, thanks to GBE! You great galumphing clown! How about reducing the cost of electricity instead of singing the virtues of solar panel installations! Note to politicians: the more expensive electricity is, the better a deal forking out for solar panels on your roof starts to look. When electricity from the grid is cheap, solar panels don’t pay for themselves.

Paragraph 9 is what you might call the heart of the essay, if it had a heart, and was not just a hollow putrid shell set up to look like something alive from a distance. I quote:

For all these reasons, we are doubling down on our agenda. Yes, there are siren voices that want to knock us off course. They would keep Britain locked in dependence on global markets we don’t control. They will also make up any old nonsense and lies to pursue their ideological agenda, the latest example being their attempt to use the crisis facing the steel industry for their deeply damaging agenda.

We will be locked in dependence on global markets if we follow your course, Ed. A child could understand that. But we have hydrocarbons under our feet. A child could understand that. Who is making up the nonsense and lies? Nothing that Ed has said today has given us even a glimmer that there is a viable case for his policy. And come on. A siren does not knock things off course. The siren sings a song of something better, and encourages us to steer towards it. Is that better thing an illusion? Not this time, I’d argue.

Paragraph 10, and UK Steel is quoted as blaming gas for our energy price woes. But as we know, every generator is paid the same (except for the generous subsidies that our renewables friends are topped up with). Yes, but gas usually sets the price that everyone gets paid. But gas has fuel costs, and renewables have no such costs. Aha! Then renewables are cheaper. Yes, with gas standing ready to save them. With a grid full of Heath Robinson contraptions that they don’t pay for. With pylons marching up and down the landscape like the Martian tripods in The War of the Worlds.

The penultimate paragraph has Ed making the non sequitur that his political opponents are pursuing the same “failed approach that led to the cost of living crisis.” Mate, the approach back then was to ban shale and promote wind farms in far-flung bits of the sea. It is the same approach that you are taking today. The Tories have changed their minds on the matter. Whether they hold firm, or waver at the first volley of dried peas, I know not. There are too many green Tories, MPs who generally do not hold the same views as their constituency party members.

The final paragraph is a Churchillian storm. We will fight them on the beaches, er, green benches, etc. Labour is going to win the fight over “clean” energy!

Well, it isn’t, is it. The country’s spine is cracking under the pressure of “clean” energy prices, and no decision that Ed makes will make them cheaper. The only decision that can make energy cheaper in the short term is Keir Starmer’s.

The final irony of the piece is that the Observer choose to illustrate it with a photograph of one of Viking’s turbines. This devil exemplifies their hoped-for future. There are a few hundred whimbrels in the UK. Most of them live on Shetland. I wonder if the Observer, or the Secretary of State, have any idea how many of them have been or will be killed by Viking, or driven away from their breeding grounds by its giant flailing arms?