In April of this year, a lawsuit commenced aimed at stopping the Panoche Valley Solar Farm. The plant is situated in the Panoche Valley, 130 miles southeast of San Francisco. The suit was brought by environmentalists who claim the plant will harm the endangered blunt-nosed lizard and kangaroo rat.
According to the blog, California State and Local Government 180, the plaintiffs attorney had this to say:
“Solar obviously is very critical. No one disputes the necessity for solar energy,… The issue here is that it is improper on this site.”
That reasoning seems to be the mantra any time anyone wants to build a solar power plant. Okay if not there, then where? Every time some company wants to build a solar power plant, wherever they want to build it is not the proper place. So, again, where?
Environmental groups demand study after study on environmental impacts. And then even when they get their study, if it doesn’t agree with their stance they demand more. Environmentalists are more of a impediment to adopting renewable energy than the right wing loonies
In 2011, construction finally began on the Topaz Solar Project, a 500-megawatt solar power plant in San Luis Obispo County, California. Environmentalists opposed that one as well.
Wind farms? Another tree-hugger fave rave. Or they used to be. After agitating for wind farms for years they are now, in many cases against them.
A proposal to build a wind farm on the Canadian shore of Lake Ontario has created an uproar among people worried about birds and wildlife.
Nature Canada members worry that wind turbines will threaten already endangered birds like Henslow’s sparrows. Photo: U.S. Geological Survey
The environmental group heading the opposition, Nature Canada, opposes the location at Ostrander Point because it is in the middle of an important bird area. (Great Lakes Echo)
These fights are going on all over the country
I’ve got some news for these biodiversity birdbrains, the types of renewable energy they champion do not come environmentally cheap. They will have an impact of the environment. There is no such thing as an energy source that is 100% environmentally neutral. They’re living in some utopian fantasyland.
Here’s the interesting part of the story. It’s not the big name environmental organizations fighting these projects. It’s smaller localized groups. The big guys have stayed away from the fray having experienced major cognitive dissonance. They want to save the environment, but understand that we need renewable energy as well. They advocate a more pragmatic approach.
What is the reaction of these groups, many of whom are rank and file members of the Big Eco? Why they sold out, of course.
Both wind and solar take up a bunch of real estate. That’s a fact. Environmentalists have to discard their unrealistic belief system and be more pragmatic. We need to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, but the very people who scream loudest about it are the ones who are making it the hardest to implement alternative energy.
Idealists have to weigh the cost/risk/benefit. I understand that is anathema to an idealist. And how do I know this? I used to be that idealist. It was all or nothing, black and white. Then slowly I came to realize that positives comes with negatives. The idea is to weigh the positives against the negatives. If you want progress, that’s the deal.
We live in the real world where 100% is pure is fantasy. The closest we get is Ivory Soap which is only 99.44% pure.