Lyle Lewis
@race2extinct.bsky.social
My book “Racing To Extinction” analyzes the imminent disappearance of humanity through the lens of my 30+ years as an ecologist with federal environmental agencies in the U.S.
https://substack.com/@lylelewis1?r=3fnb3k&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
https://substack.com/@lylelewis1?r=3fnb3k&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
Pinned
Lyle Lewis
@race2extinct.bsky.social
· Dec 18
Since European colonization, North America has lost 9–11 billion birds.
• ~5–6 billion before 1940
• ~1–2 billion from 1940–1970
• ~2.9 billion since 1970
The quiet collapse of abundance is how the Sixth Mass Extinction is playing out: fewer wings, fewer songs.
• ~5–6 billion before 1940
• ~1–2 billion from 1940–1970
• ~2.9 billion since 1970
The quiet collapse of abundance is how the Sixth Mass Extinction is playing out: fewer wings, fewer songs.
This is some of the best ecology writing I’ve seen, but it still assumes intervention.
The debate shifts from how many elephants to which processes to manage, but restraint itself rarely enters the frame.
We’ve never learned to sit with complexity.
www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/...
The debate shifts from how many elephants to which processes to manage, but restraint itself rarely enters the frame.
We’ve never learned to sit with complexity.
www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/...
Elephants and marulas — a call for a more nuanced approach to nature’s drama in Kruger National Park
The ‘elephant problem’ debate tracks this logic: dead or damaged trees with signs of elephants being involved equals evidence of too many elephants which requires their numbers to be reduced. This int...
www.dailymaverick.co.za
February 9, 2026 at 9:28 PM
This is some of the best ecology writing I’ve seen, but it still assumes intervention.
The debate shifts from how many elephants to which processes to manage, but restraint itself rarely enters the frame.
We’ve never learned to sit with complexity.
www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/...
The debate shifts from how many elephants to which processes to manage, but restraint itself rarely enters the frame.
We’ve never learned to sit with complexity.
www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/...
“You don’t have to be a scientist to see what’s happening.”
www.seattletimes.com...
www.seattletimes.com...
February 9, 2026 at 12:30 PM
“You don’t have to be a scientist to see what’s happening.”
www.seattletimes.com...
www.seattletimes.com...
Reposted by Lyle Lewis
What energy was used to build the infrastructure our society relies upon to now make wind turbines? Here is an engineer's EROEI analysis of energy for human civilization.
After discussing the basics of coal, oil and gas, it explicitly reviews wind turbines and their future.
After discussing the basics of coal, oil and gas, it explicitly reviews wind turbines and their future.
How Much Degrowth Is Enough? Rv9
YouTube video by Jack Alpert
youtu.be
February 8, 2026 at 11:46 AM
What energy was used to build the infrastructure our society relies upon to now make wind turbines? Here is an engineer's EROEI analysis of energy for human civilization.
After discussing the basics of coal, oil and gas, it explicitly reviews wind turbines and their future.
After discussing the basics of coal, oil and gas, it explicitly reviews wind turbines and their future.
Reposted by Lyle Lewis
There was never as much water in the river as negotiators assumed even back in 1922 — a fact scientists knew at the time. The states spent decades outrunning that original sin by finding creative ways to conserve water when drought struck. @sammyroth.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/o...
Opinion | These Four States Are in Denial Over a Looming Water Crisis
www.nytimes.com
February 3, 2026 at 2:14 PM
There was never as much water in the river as negotiators assumed even back in 1922 — a fact scientists knew at the time. The states spent decades outrunning that original sin by finding creative ways to conserve water when drought struck. @sammyroth.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/o...
This isn’t disinformation….it’s ecology. Infrastructure fragments habitat. Demanding a custom GIS analysis in a comment thread is how sealioning works, not science.
Do you need me to write you specific steps? Surely an ecologist w/ 30 years of experience can accomplish this all on his own. If you're going to make extraordinary claims, they require evidence. You're acting less like a scientist and more like someone who is trying to disinform the public.
February 8, 2026 at 10:34 PM
This isn’t disinformation….it’s ecology. Infrastructure fragments habitat. Demanding a custom GIS analysis in a comment thread is how sealioning works, not science.
Reposted by Lyle Lewis
A degraded ecosystem, released from constant pressure, is being allowed to biologically manifest itself as fully as it still can. And that turns out to be enough to reorganize abundance.
I published an essay today about Willow: a mountain lion whose life was closely observed, and largely left untouched.
The piece stands on its own, but it’s in conversation with a documentary many of you have seen.
open.substack.com/pub/lylel/p/...
The piece stands on its own, but it’s in conversation with a documentary many of you have seen.
open.substack.com/pub/lylel/p/...
The Most Important Thing in Willow Was What Wasn’t There
Western Montana grassland under chronic livestock grazing, with uniform low vegetation in the foreground and remnant cottonwood gallery forest skeletons in the distance—evidence of a once wetter, more...
open.substack.com
February 8, 2026 at 6:41 PM
A degraded ecosystem, released from constant pressure, is being allowed to biologically manifest itself as fully as it still can. And that turns out to be enough to reorganize abundance.
Reposted by Lyle Lewis
Reposted by Lyle Lewis
I published an essay today about Willow: a mountain lion whose life was closely observed, and largely left untouched.
The piece stands on its own, but it’s in conversation with a documentary many of you have seen.
open.substack.com/pub/lylel/p/...
The piece stands on its own, but it’s in conversation with a documentary many of you have seen.
open.substack.com/pub/lylel/p/...
The Most Important Thing in Willow Was What Wasn’t There
Western Montana grassland under chronic livestock grazing, with uniform low vegetation in the foreground and remnant cottonwood gallery forest skeletons in the distance—evidence of a once wetter, more...
open.substack.com
February 8, 2026 at 1:53 PM
I published an essay today about Willow: a mountain lion whose life was closely observed, and largely left untouched.
The piece stands on its own, but it’s in conversation with a documentary many of you have seen.
open.substack.com/pub/lylel/p/...
The piece stands on its own, but it’s in conversation with a documentary many of you have seen.
open.substack.com/pub/lylel/p/...
Turbine points + NLCD won’t “prove” fragmentation. The footprint is roads, pads, and transmission corridors, plus cumulative edge effects. That takes the right layers and landscape-metric analysis—not a quick point overlay. Feel free to sealion elsewhere.
fragmenting farmland habitat seems like small potatoes to me. nevertheless, why dont you go and prove it? download the NLCD. find turbine location data. show me how much turbines have fragmented habitats. i reckon it would take maybe a day's work. u wouldnt need anything more powerful than a laptop.
February 8, 2026 at 1:19 PM
Turbine points + NLCD won’t “prove” fragmentation. The footprint is roads, pads, and transmission corridors, plus cumulative edge effects. That takes the right layers and landscape-metric analysis—not a quick point overlay. Feel free to sealion elsewhere.
It’s not cut and dried at small scales. The issue is cumulative effects. Farmland still provides habitat function, and adding pads, roads, turbines, and corridors fragments what remains. Ecology isn’t about winners. It’s about net function across landscapes.
if the farmland was farmland before and after the wind turbine was installed, WHO CARES? Also, transmission corridors aren't ecologically neutral. Where I grew up, they had some of the most diverse flora that you could find because some plants thrive on disturbance. this is not cut and dried.
February 8, 2026 at 5:21 AM
It’s not cut and dried at small scales. The issue is cumulative effects. Farmland still provides habitat function, and adding pads, roads, turbines, and corridors fragments what remains. Ecology isn’t about winners. It’s about net function across landscapes.
LCAs include direct turbine maintenance. What they don’t capture well are system-level effects: roads, pads, transmission corridors, exclusion zones, edge effects, & cumulative fragmentation over thousands of sites. Farmland isn’t ecologically neutral, & infrastructure still fragments what remains.
first of all, they explicitly include maintenance, which was the topic of the conversation. In terms of land use, I feel like I see most turbines in places where the land use hasn't changed all that much, like farmland. thats anecdotal. also, what habitat is a wind turbine fragmenting? gimme a break
February 8, 2026 at 5:08 AM
LCAs include direct turbine maintenance. What they don’t capture well are system-level effects: roads, pads, transmission corridors, exclusion zones, edge effects, & cumulative fragmentation over thousands of sites. Farmland isn’t ecologically neutral, & infrastructure still fragments what remains.
Lifecycle carbon intensity ≠ total system cost. LCAs are good at counting CO₂ per kWh, but systematically undercount land use, habitat fragmentation, transmission buildout, redundancy, maintenance infrastructure, and replacement cycles. Those costs don’t vanish. They’re just treated as background.
Then we need to know exactly what the costs over time are for maintaining wind turbines as compared to other generators. The answer ala the Colorado Sun (coloradosun.com/2025/12/15/d...):
February 8, 2026 at 4:34 AM
Lifecycle carbon intensity ≠ total system cost. LCAs are good at counting CO₂ per kWh, but systematically undercount land use, habitat fragmentation, transmission buildout, redundancy, maintenance infrastructure, and replacement cycles. Those costs don’t vanish. They’re just treated as background.
Jobs and learning curves aren’t the issue. The issue is throughput. More maintenance, materials, and replacement mean higher energy and resource demand over time. Recycling and efficiency help, but they don’t eliminate scale limits or physical losses.
Sounds good to me. More maintenance = more jobs. Ppl have to fly the drones, maintain them, and so on. And in terms of needing more materials, so what? They'll get better at recycling them and creating low-maintenance parts with time. That's a strength of capitalism. All tech starts this way. Chill.
February 8, 2026 at 4:09 AM
Jobs and learning curves aren’t the issue. The issue is throughput. More maintenance, materials, and replacement mean higher energy and resource demand over time. Recycling and efficiency help, but they don’t eliminate scale limits or physical losses.
Access to cooling matters. But nuclear can’t be built fast enough or at sufficient global scale to meet a 400% demand increase in ten years. Once mining, construction, fuel cycles, and decommissioning are included, it isn’t carbon-free either. This is a systems problem, not a single-tech solution.
Nuclear is the only carbon free answer that can handle the 400% increase in electricity demand world wide in the next ten years. Poor countries get air conditioning too right?
February 8, 2026 at 3:37 AM
Access to cooling matters. But nuclear can’t be built fast enough or at sufficient global scale to meet a 400% demand increase in ten years. Once mining, construction, fuel cycles, and decommissioning are included, it isn’t carbon-free either. This is a systems problem, not a single-tech solution.
Hidden costs? The costs are externalized or normalized. Mining footprints, transmission corridors, maintenance infrastructure, habitat fragmentation, replacement cycles, and decommissioning are visible, but rarely counted as part of energy output. Longevity doesn’t make those costs disappear.
There is close to half a million wind turbines in operation globally.
I saw my first ones in Denmark some time around 1984.
If there had been "hidden costs", those would have been seen already.
A lot of straw men arguments are popping up recently in social media.
This looks like yet another of them.
I saw my first ones in Denmark some time around 1984.
If there had been "hidden costs", those would have been seen already.
A lot of straw men arguments are popping up recently in social media.
This looks like yet another of them.
February 8, 2026 at 3:34 AM
Hidden costs? The costs are externalized or normalized. Mining footprints, transmission corridors, maintenance infrastructure, habitat fragmentation, replacement cycles, and decommissioning are visible, but rarely counted as part of energy output. Longevity doesn’t make those costs disappear.
I’m not arguing for fossil fuels. I’m arguing that no large-scale energy system is impact-free. Changing fuels doesn’t eliminate mining, machinery, land use, maintenance, or risk. It redistributes them. That’s a systems point, not an endorsement.
Yeah, because we're far better off with fossil fuels that not only pollute the atmosphere, but require constant feeding that requires heavy machinery for mining, railways, trucks, ships, cranes etc hey genius? There's also endless wars killing people and destroying infrastructure over fossil fuels.
a large factory with smoke coming out of the chimneys
ALT: a large factory with smoke coming out of the chimneys
media.tenor.com
February 8, 2026 at 3:28 AM
I’m not arguing for fossil fuels. I’m arguing that no large-scale energy system is impact-free. Changing fuels doesn’t eliminate mining, machinery, land use, maintenance, or risk. It redistributes them. That’s a systems point, not an endorsement.
Exactly. No large energy system is machine-free or maintenance-free. That’s the point.
Ah, and since coal-fired plants require no machines or mining or maintenance.. wait..
February 8, 2026 at 3:26 AM
Exactly. No large energy system is machine-free or maintenance-free. That’s the point.
I’m not comparing wind to oil rigs. I’m pointing out that scale brings ongoing infrastructure, labor, and risk….regardless of energy source.
So does a offshore oil rig but much worse for disasters can be catastrophic an requires hundreds of men to operate very expensive
February 8, 2026 at 3:24 AM
I’m not comparing wind to oil rigs. I’m pointing out that scale brings ongoing infrastructure, labor, and risk….regardless of energy source.
That’s not the argument. The point isn’t that anyone thinks wind is “set-and-go,” or that drones are dangerous. It’s that maintenance, monitoring, and failure don’t disappear at scale. They intensify. Drones are evidence of added infrastructure, not a revelation.
How ironic given that the article has one glaring straw man -- that wind energy proponents insist it is set-and-go. Then you introduce another fallacy that insists the graduation to drones for inspection is somehow a revelation into the danger of wind power. Very odd and not well written.
February 8, 2026 at 3:22 AM
That’s not the argument. The point isn’t that anyone thinks wind is “set-and-go,” or that drones are dangerous. It’s that maintenance, monitoring, and failure don’t disappear at scale. They intensify. Drones are evidence of added infrastructure, not a revelation.
This mixes up basic physics. Combustion heat dissipates quickly; climate change is driven by long-lived radiative imbalance, not stored fire.
My point isn’t fossil fuels vs renewables. It’s that large-scale energy systems don’t eliminate impacts. They relocate them.
My point isn’t fossil fuels vs renewables. It’s that large-scale energy systems don’t eliminate impacts. They relocate them.
🐂💩 ALERT!
The ratio of destruction just in terms of mining of 😎💨RE vs 🔥⛽ fossil ☠️ energy is perhaps 1 vs 100. But heat is the planet killer.
1 ton of petrol, oil or gas burned makes c. 2.5 tons of CO2. Imagine the heat of 1 ton of petrol on fire. That CO2 traps 200x that heat after 100 years.
The ratio of destruction just in terms of mining of 😎💨RE vs 🔥⛽ fossil ☠️ energy is perhaps 1 vs 100. But heat is the planet killer.
1 ton of petrol, oil or gas burned makes c. 2.5 tons of CO2. Imagine the heat of 1 ton of petrol on fire. That CO2 traps 200x that heat after 100 years.
Wind turbines don’t eliminate complexity. They concentrate it.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
February 8, 2026 at 3:20 AM
This mixes up basic physics. Combustion heat dissipates quickly; climate change is driven by long-lived radiative imbalance, not stored fire.
My point isn’t fossil fuels vs renewables. It’s that large-scale energy systems don’t eliminate impacts. They relocate them.
My point isn’t fossil fuels vs renewables. It’s that large-scale energy systems don’t eliminate impacts. They relocate them.
CO₂ doesn’t “trap 200× the heat of burning fuel.” Combustion heat dissipates in hours; climate forcing is about long-lived radiative imbalance, not stored fire. My point isn’t that fossil fuels are worse or better. It’s that large-scale energy systems shift impacts rather than erase them.
Bullshit. The ratio of destruction caused just in terms of mining of RE vs fossil energy is perhaps 1 vs 100. But heat is the planet killer.
1 ton of petrol, oil or gas burned makes c. 2.5 tons of CO2. Imagine the heat of 1 ton of petrol on fire. That CO2 traps over 200x the heat after 100 years.
1 ton of petrol, oil or gas burned makes c. 2.5 tons of CO2. Imagine the heat of 1 ton of petrol on fire. That CO2 traps over 200x the heat after 100 years.
February 8, 2026 at 3:16 AM
CO₂ doesn’t “trap 200× the heat of burning fuel.” Combustion heat dissipates in hours; climate forcing is about long-lived radiative imbalance, not stored fire. My point isn’t that fossil fuels are worse or better. It’s that large-scale energy systems shift impacts rather than erase them.
Calling systems analysis “misinformation” doesn’t make the tradeoffs disappear.
Exaggeration, misinformation and false flags...
February 8, 2026 at 3:13 AM
Calling systems analysis “misinformation” doesn’t make the tradeoffs disappear.
This isn’t fossil fuel advocacy. It’s a systems argument. Large-scale energy doesn’t eliminate impacts; it relocates and concentrates them. That’s true for coal, wind, solar, nuclear. Pick your technology.
Smells like fossil fuel propaganda
Wind turbines don’t eliminate complexity. They concentrate it.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
February 8, 2026 at 3:10 AM
This isn’t fossil fuel advocacy. It’s a systems argument. Large-scale energy doesn’t eliminate impacts; it relocates and concentrates them. That’s true for coal, wind, solar, nuclear. Pick your technology.
Wind turbines don’t eliminate complexity. They concentrate it.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
America was right about wind turbines: The "dark side" no one wanted to discuss, and drones begin to move in
Wind power’s hidden flaw wasn’t politics but maintenance—now AI-driven drones inspect spinning turbines, proving American concerns weren’t baseless
www.ecoportal.net
February 7, 2026 at 12:29 PM
Wind turbines don’t eliminate complexity. They concentrate it.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.
As systems scale, they require more materials, maintenance, energy—and machines just to stay online.
All large-scale energy systems are environmentally destructive. The impacts don’t disappear; they change form.