Related
Recommended
Lydia T

The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is an important step towards meeting net zero targets. Wind and solar are the main energy sources being pursued, but with land across the UK a finite resource, there has been debate about whether large-scale deployment of such power generation technologies on land could exacerbate future land use challenges. In a new RSPB study, we show that this need not be the case. We can deploy ambitious levels of onshore wind and solar, enough to support a net-zero energy sector as outlined by the Climate Change Committee, without significantly impacting how much food we produce, the extent of available habitat for breeding birds, or the ability to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the agricultural, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector.

Farming landscape with wind turbines in the background. Ian Francis. rspb-images.com

Using spatial data, we created maps showing areas deemed suitable for onshore wind and solar, accounting for a long list of constraints, such land use, soil type, distance from residential areas, protected sites, and sensitive areas for birds, to name a few. Under these constraints, 24.3% and 4.9% of UK land area were deemed suitable for wind and solar respectively. But deploying 90 GW of solar and 35 GW of onshore wind requires only 2.6% of UK land (0.6% and 1.7% for solar and wind farms, respectively). This figure is even less when you count only the direct footprint of the energy infrastructure, around 0.9% of UK land across both technologies.

Given sensible spatial targeting, the impact of ambitious deployment of onshore renewables on competing land interests is minor:

  • There is a less than 1% reduction in food production, because we prioritise deployment in the least productive areas first.
  • AFOLU GHG emissions reduce by 1%. Because renewables are deployed on agricultural land, the associated agricultural emissions are reduced.
  • Habitat availability for breeding birds is decreased by up to 1.8%.

The relatively small percentage of land required will enable the UK to position renewables on lower grade agricultural land, avoiding sensitive wildlife areas including national parks, and the best and most versatile agricultural land. In doing so, nature can be given suitable space to play a critical role in our overall efforts to tackle climate change, underpin our food security through nature-friendly farming, and ensure we reach net zero emissions by 2050. For example, the research shows there is sufficient land to enable the creation and restoration of woodlands, peatlands and saltmarshes (as outlined in a previous RSPB study) among other quality ‘nature-based solutions’, which will be crucial not only for supporting nature’s recovery, but also to store carbon and mitigate some of the negative impacts of climate change such as flooding.

The report notes that, based on current farming practices and land use, the implementation of nature-based solutions as part of the UK’s net zero toolkit would affect the amount of land available for food production (22% decrease). However, food system reform will help to mitigate the impact of land-use change on food production, and the adoption of nature-friendly farming practices at the same time could increase resilience and contribute towards efforts to tackle the nature and climate crisis.

This habitat creation provides a far greater decrease in AFOLU GHG emissions (101%), where we surpass net zero, due to the greater carbon sequestration and storage of new habitats and reduction in emitting activities. The new habitats created result in a considerable increase in breeding birds, of up to 11%.

So, what does this mean? Building more renewable energy is not optional for nature or for people - to avert the worst effects of climate change and preserve a liveable planet for people and wildlife, we must limit warming to 1.5 degrees (emissions must be slashed by 45% by 2030 and net zero by 2050 for this to remain achievable).[1] There is a growing body of research indicating that the impacts of extreme weather caused by carbon pollution is likely to put an additional pressure on birds, particularly seabirds and migratory birds.[2]

This study shows that we can build the renewables we need for wildlife and people, without making our nature recovery goals more challenging. The relatively small percentage of land required for renewables means we can steer the deployment of onshore renewables towards lower grade agricultural land and away from sensitive wildlife areas and national parks.

The challenge here is not the amount of land we have available, but how local, devolved and national government manages our use of it. A strategic approach to choosing which sites renewables are built on is necessary, and nature must be embedded as a top priority in the site selection process. There are obvious ways in which to do this – through giving the new body GB Energy a nature recovery remit for instance.

With good policies in place, nature can be given suitable space to play a critical role in our overall efforts to tackle climate change, underpin our food security through nature-friendly farming, and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

[1] https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition

[2] For example: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/250034/future-200-migratory-bird-species-risk/ ; https://www.cms.int/en/news/major-new-un-report-finds-climate-change-severely-impacting-migratory-species-wild-animals ; https://www.bto.org/our-science/publications/peer-reviewed-papers/seabird-abundances-projected-decline-response-climate