Eagles vs. People vs. Climate change

It turns out that wind power kills about 80 eagles per year in California alone.

Environmentalists seem to be always sticking the foot of unintended consequences in the mouth of grand plans to "save" the environment.

Back in the 60s they banned DDT to save eagles, which led directly to the deaths of millions of people to malaria, and the science later showed that the DDT to thin eggshell link was falacious in any case.

But, eagles are more important than people by several orders of magnitude to environmentalists, so I'm fascinated to see how they'll come down on this latest conundrum. To environmentalists:

Eagles, good.
Wind power, good.

So, how will they prioritize? On the side of the Eagles (good), wind farms (good) are run by humans (bad), and corporations (worse!), for the benefit of humans (bad), but they supposedly help mitigate climate change (good).

By my accounting, eagles, an unmitigated good in environmentalist-speak, trump wind power, which carries a lot of bad baggage.

Oh, but I forgot the most crucial factor! $$$$! The big government money being doled out these days is to renewable energy, not to saving eagles. As they say, follow the money. Sorry, eagles.

Ironically if hunters were killing 80 eagles a year in California, they'd want their heads, and to ban hunting, and guns, and rednecks. But I'm afraid with renewable energy involved, well, if you want to make the omelet of saving the planet, you've got to, ahem, break a few eggs.