Flying into brightly lit (but non-moving) buildings at night, particularly those situated along the primary flyways, takes a big toll on migratory birds. Collisions with cars, towers and other structures are significant, along with permanent habitat loss. But outdoor domestic and feral cats (in the USA) are #1.
On CG fishery patrols in Alaska we sometimes found the decks littered with dozens of dead birds that had flown into the bulkheads at night. How many died from hitting the hull, and thus going uncounted, is anyone's guess.
The various forms of alternative energy are probably far less destructive in the aggregate than what we've been doing for a long time, but they're not benign by any means and still require a fossil fuel base to support virtually every step of their manufacture, deployment and maintenance. Their respective proponents still have to make the case for where and how they site them, as well as their economic viability. Or not. Expecting full honesty and transparency regarding the costs and benefits of anything, from the industry that will profit from but inevitably try to socialize as much of the costs as possible, is naive at best. It's just the way it is.
Uptown Sinclair's rule applies: It's hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends upon him not understanding it.
In the current political climate the easiest solution is probably for Congress to simply defund and/or abolish the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Shooting the messenger has been a go-to response for the ages. Why change now?
Having said all that, given our insatiable appetite for energy, along with our inability to exercise real restraint, failing to carefully responsibly develop the various alternatives is major dereliction of duty on the part of government at every level. This endless expenditure of blood and treasure overseas is just bankrupting us.