The timing no doubt was coincidence, but while Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was celebrating the country's largest solar project in California, two U.S. senators were introducing legislation to protect desert landscapes in the state.
The irony wasn't lost on the National Parks Conservation Association, which has questioned the location of the solar farm.
“There is a lot of celebrating today in the California desert. Senator Feinstein released the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act and Sally Jewell flipped the on-switch at Desert Sunlight Solar plant. The confluence of these events highlights the important work that remains to be done in the California desert," said David Lamfrom, NPCA's California Desert associate director. "That includes permanently protecting some of the most beautiful and vibrant lands in America and the continued need to do a better job of siting renewable energy away from species-rich lands. Considering how important our national parks and protected lands are to our desert economy, finding this balance now is fundamental.”
Earlier Monday, the Interior secretary and the director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze joined California state and industry leaders to “flip the switch” on the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm. Now operating at full capacity, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is providing 550 megawatts of electricity to the grid, enough energy to power 160,000 average homes. The facility is estimated to displace 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year – the equivalent to taking 60,000 cars off the road.
“Solar projects like Desert Sunlight are helping to create American jobs, develop domestic renewable energy and cut carbon pollution,” said Secretary Jewell. “I applaud the project proponents for their vision and entrepreneurial spirit to build this solar project and commend Governor Brown for implementing policies that take action on climate change and help move our nation toward a renewable energy future.”
Desert Sunlight is the sixth solar project approved on public lands that is now operational. Together with wind, solar and geothermal, the renewable energy projects built on public lands since 2009 are producing over 2,200 megawatts of power, or enough to power almost 700,000 average homes. An additional 2,500 megawatts is currently under construction, including eight solar projects in California and Nevada.
Desert Sunlight is located on about 4,100 acres managed by the BLM in Riverside County, about 70 miles east of Palm Springs and six miles north of the rural community of Desert Center. The facility uses more than eight million First Solar photovoltaic modules to generate power with no air emissions, no waste production and no water use. The thin film technology has the smallest carbon footprint of any photovoltaic technology. The renewable energy is sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison under long-term contracts.
As part of the Interior Department’s commitment to responsible development of renewable energy, the Desert Sunlight project underwent extensive environmental review and mitigation. The BLM worked in close coordination with Desert Sunlight, the National Park Service and other stakeholders to significantly reduce the proposed project’s total footprint down from the proposed 19,000 acres. The BLM is requiring that Desert Sunlight provide funding for acquisition and enhancement of more than 7,500 acres of suitable habitat for desert tortoise and other sensitive wildlife species to help mitigate the project’s potential impacts.
Also on Monday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both California Democrats, introduced legislation that would expand by 75,000 acres the Mojave National Preserve and Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks.
“This piece of legislation is the final chapter in a long effort to preserve one of the most magnificent landscapes in the United States,” Sen. Feinstein said. “We must ensure that critical parts of the California desert—with its mountain vistas, bighorn sheep, mule deer, desert tortoises, Joshua trees, Native American petroglyphs and much more—will be protected for all time.”
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I have no disagreement with the concept that we need to seek alternative means of generating electricity, but the more I've looked at the idea of huge solar arrays, the more I wonder if that is the best way.
Around here there are a number of buildings that now sport large arrays of panels on their roofs. Talking with some of the owners, I've learned that they are able to generate and store over half of the electricity they use in that building. They acknowledge that the cost of installing their systems was high and that they may not ever completely recoup the cost. Tax breaks helped, but didn't cover it all.
A couple of these owners have mentioned that they did it partly because of a sense of personal responsibility. One said, "Shouldn't I try to help? Shouldn't we all try to help?"
What if, somehow, we could find a way to encourage that kind of thinking in everyone? Instead, many powerful people and businesses spend enormous amounts of time and money trying discourage that approach. (Think oil and coal industries -- or the GOP fight against affordable health care.)
Could one of the worst problems we face be the lack of personal responsibility not only in our homes but in our legislatures as well? Right now in Utah there is a battle going on the back rooms of the Capitol over a bill that would encourage home owners to install solar panels on their roofs. On the other side are people who actually want to make it more difficult for a homeowner to obtain permits or permission from the city. One argument is that solar panels "reflect sunlight and create an unsightly glare."
Interestingly, every one of the legilslators who oppose this bill are members of ALEC -- the American Legislative Exchange Council. (If you don't know of ALEC, you need to Google it. ALEC is probably one of the worst enemies we face these days.)
One of the owners I spoke with -- he runs an autobody shop that has an enormous array on its roof -- told me that he knows some people think an investment like that is foolish. "And maybe it is. But I feel like I'm a pioneer. After all, weren't there people once who said it was foolish to try to build a city beside the Great Salt Lake?" He added that some people suggested he wait a few years until technology was better. "But I figured I could take advantage of what's there now and maybe by supporting the new industry of solar power, I could help them develop that better technology."
We need more people like him. Germany has had great success in developing alternative power sources that feed into their national electrical grid. Why can't we?
How many acres of empty roof tops are there in the United States? Germany is in a northern location but they seem capable of finding adequate sunlight for their rooftop installations. Why can't we?
We could. If we really wanted to . . . .
Great post Lee, rooftop solar is a sign of the future, if I was younger and had the cash, I would be installing it now. Here in California, solar panels are now being used even to run peoples well pumps. One of the advantages of rooftop solar, is that it negates to some extent the mega solar farms. Actually, my own home is in a great location, I need little energy to heat it in the winter, especially the last 3, it was 70 degrees yesterday, and the elevation is such that I need zero heating energy in the summer, except for hot water (I have an on demand hot water heater). I believe you are right, more and more countries are investing in renewable energy, that is good.
Lee, your fight with the Conservative Wing is misguided. Im not so sure about the Republicans. There is profiteering going on in leadership levels (of both sides of the isle).
If a few on here would actually consider the possibility that all is not what it seems and investigate actual outcomes and consequences........
Uh, could you identify this "fight against affordable health care"? You really do like attacking strawmen don't you.
Apparently EC does not know the GOP controlled House of Representatives has tried at least 56 times to kill the affordable care act. That aside it might be that distributed energy in this country is opposed by the big utilities because it would diminish their control. Just a wild guess with no facts to back it up EC. The nice thing about distributed energy is the grid is already built to each house and business. It is subsidized of course but what is the subsidy in public land and the building of huge solar/wind farms and the transmission lines crossing public and private land?
It never ceases to amaze me how much mainstream environmentalism has changed. In the "old days," preserving landscape was everything. Now the movement is about making "deals." The Desert Protective Council gets my vote on these issues. You may contact them at http://dpcinc.org/ I also applaud NPCA. How will destroying the desert possibly "save us" from climate change? It won't, but it will sure make more billionaires at General Electric. Europe? They site these projects far better than we do, and most important, have real public transportation to back them up.
At least, one federal judge got the message early this month and sent a big wind farm in Nevada back to the drawing board. The EIS was totally bogus. Eagles, bats, and tortoises? What are those? The energy we make is GREEN! Lee is right. Put it on the roof and keep it out of the desert. The land is also a critical carbon sink, or did we forget where all biology comes from?
I am well aware of that Roger. Apparently you do not know that the "affordable care act" has done nothing but raise the cost of insurance and lowered the quality of health care. The GOP has no problem trying to make health care affordable, they just know that government intrusion into the market isn't the way to do it.
As to distributed energy - I have absolutely no problem with it. Just don't make me subsidize your purchases and don't frown when I laugh at you for wasting your money.
Lee Dalton. I've finally found something upon which to take your side.
Good post, Lee. I know that where some find desert to be simply 'wastelands', others find desert a rich natural landscape. Covering it with solar panels makes sense to the first half of the people.
Rooftop solar, now, makes a lot of sense. Bright minds addressing some of the points you've made to incent people to do that would seem to pay off in a much shorter run of the long run.
Apple to spend $850M on solar energy from new solar farm in California
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-spend-850m-solar-energy-211547120.ht...
Apple continues to aggressively adopt solar to power its data centers. On Tuesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced that the company plans to spend $850 million to purchase energy from a solar panel farm that is being built by First Solar in Monterey, California.
The companies called the deal the largest ever to supply clean power to a commercial user.
I got rooftop solar (living in CA with a southern roof exposure, no brainer). The bulk (over 90%) of rooftop solar installations do not have a battery back up. The utility is your backup battery when the sun goes down. Currently, CA allows new installations to be net metered (e.g. your production offsets your production $ for $), althought that's not the case in all states.
The future of solar installations is cheap battery storage. So far, nobody has figured it out, but plenty of people are working on it.
GOOGLE:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-build-850m-solar-energy-20475355...
Apple (AAPL) will partner with First Solar (FSLR) to build an $850 million solar energy farm in California, CEO Tim Cook said on Tuesday.
First Solar shares spiked on the news and closed the day about 5 percent higher, while Apple ended about 2 percent higher. Apple's value rose to $710.70 billion as it became the first U.S. company to close with a market cap above $700 billion. The tech giant had touched the $700 billion level before but never managed to settle there.
Cook touched on the solar project and a wide range of company developments-including Apple Pay, the Apple Watch and the company's partnership with IBM (IBM)-at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference.
I failed to mention this morning that America is in great danger of losing out to countries like China, Taiwan, India and others where their governments are investing in assistance to businesses that are on the leading edge of research and development in new and improved solar generation.
But in America, our Congress and state legislatures -- the entities that hold the keys to our success or failure -- are doing all they can to drag their feet. Why?
Why would the state of Utah try to charge people who install solar or wind power on their homes a premium fee? Two reasons that are really just one in the end. Rocky Mountain Power and our lawmakers have pretty well bought in to a plot spawned by ALEC (which is funded by the likes of Koch Industries) that tries to convince people that power customers without home generation capabilities are being subsidized by other who don't. The bottom line, however, is the Koch push to protect their coal and oil assets.
Why would the U.S. Congress oppose this? Could it be that their primary goal has been, still is, and will be to simply stymie anything that might be supported by the current administration or the opposing party?
What is the price of all that? How many business opportunities are being ignored and how many American jobs will be lost?
Is common sense dead in America? Trampled by greed?
Great post again Lee, unfortunately with the culmination of the Roberts Supreme Court and specifically its Citizens United decision (there are many others they have made to turn the clock back), we are headed to a corporate oligarchy. Our democratic system is up for sale, this is the most reactionary court since the 1920s. I agree with you.
Hold the keys to our success? If anything, they possess the locks.
And how exactly do they do that. In every case I have seen, governments are subsidizing these uneconomic investments. What "premium fee" are you referencing. Or is this just another of your imaginary strawmen?
Why Lee? You know the answer - because they are bought and paid for.
Yes, Rick, I'm afraid I do. And they have locked too many ordinary Americans out of the possibility of success. Happily, it looks as though legislation that would enable Rocky Mountain Power to charge a premium to people who install alternate electric generation will fail in the current session of our loonislature. Hopefully.
It's also a little more than ironic that Rocky Mountain Power has for years had what they call "The Blue Sky Program" that encourages customers like me to contribute extra dollars on our power payments to help pay for their efforts to build wind farms and solar sites.
Why does everyone persist in calling wind and solar installations "farms?" They are not farms; they are industrial slums. There. You see what I just did? Stopped playing The Emperor's New Clothes. Industrializing the remainder of America's open space in the name of "green energy" is not going to solve a thing. Rooftop solar? Maybe. But even there, nothing on this earth comes for "free." You want water power? You lose the canyons. You lose fish runs and white water. You want green energy? You lose gobs of landscape--and wildlife habitat. Oh, yeah, we get to keep the national parks. But every vista from every mountain top is about to come with thousands of blinking red lights--and glare. Fly out of Las Vegas and look south to the Ivanpah thermal solar "farm." The glare can be seen for 100 miles.
You're dreaming, good people. And enabling. "When we invent this, we will have paradise." Well, please "invent" it first. Right now, all that is happening is the destruction of paradise. Take a ride west and see for yourselves.
Alfred Runte, I do see your point. I was reading an interesting article by James Hustave Speth, founder of NRDC, advisor to both Presidents Carter and Clinton, administrator of the UN Development Program, dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and now a professor at Vermont Law School. A very thought provoking article and touches on both your and Dr. Botkins posts. Quite a discussion on his experience at the UN and the overwhelming poverty and environmental degradation he observed traveling to many different nations. In any case an interesting read.
rmackie,
If you come across a link to the article, would you post it? It does sound interesting.
Agreed - but here in Breck even calling them solar farms is not PC. They are solar
"gardens".
So why not encourage more and more people to install panels on their roofs. I just noticed a new condo or apartment complex this afternoon that has panels on the roofs of all their carports.
Instead, we have Koch funded ALEC pushing state legislatures to pass laws that will penalize people who do so. A few states have already passed their prefabricated "suggestions" into law.
Because as of yet, without subsidies, it is uneconomic in most cases.
More strawmen or do you have specific examples? I think in reality you are showing your basic lack of understanding of economics or intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
Such a surprise, Lee. Koch is looking for anything to either encourage consumption of their products or discourage alternatives to their products.
It helps them to have bought and paid for most of Congress.
Lee, I priced solar for my home here in Seattle. The estimate came to $24,000. My electric bill averages $100 per month. That would take me 20 years to recoup my investment. As for the Koch Brothers, I consider them "code," much like Xerxes was to the Greeks. The Persians are coming! The Persians are coming! Well, it sure made a bundle for all of the Greeks selling war supplies.
Forget the Koch Brothers and focus on the real issue: If green energy is so efficient, why does it need so many euphemisms to sell it--to say nothing of the subsidies? Why do people promote what they have not yet invented, as if the invention is sure to occur? Elmer Gantry would understand, but why must we understand? When government assisted the railroads, it was a proven invention. Why must the taxpayers "assist" what requires constant backup, i.e., the gas-fired turbines placed right next door?
I know; fossil fuels are subsidized, too. That doesn't make wind and solar "right." The batteries are coming, we hear. Well, I want to see them first. I know batteries, and I fail to see how any battery could store enough to light a city. Just north of us, one county public utility just announced its battery farm this way: "It stores enough electricity to light 400 homes for an hour!" In other words, it is next to worthless, since the county has 500,000 souls. Certainly, the utility did not say that 20 homes could be lighted for 24 hours. You mean to say that one battery--the size of a shipping container--can do no better than that? Even if those "new" batteries come along, how many will it take?
I am not prepared to give up my public lands because Xerxes might be on his way. As for Elmer Gantry, he is already here. Trust me! Believe me! Now, pardon me while I pass the plate. In my case, I already contributed. I believe he called himself the Wizard of Oz. He said that cancer would be cured by now. He said that an atomic pill would run my car. He said that by 2000 no one would have to work a day. He said that people would live 200 years. He said there would be fusion, just like the sun. He said we would colonize the moon.
He said, and he said, and he said. But all I keep seeing is the plate. The Koch Brothers? They are amateurs in the game of misleading the public. We have perfected that all by ourselves.
Nailed it Alfred. When in doubt, throwout "its backed by the Koch brothers". But of course Lee can't identify "it" or why "it" is bad.
Reading your Yosemite book now. Can't say you nailed the Hutchings v Low argument but hey, you are pushing a point of view.
We differ, Al.
I see the Koch brothers and what they are now openly and blatantly doing as a real and present danger to the nation. No Greek references or allusions to other things. Today, as they stand, no code. They are a cancer. Elmer Gantry was a great role for Lancaster, but I get tired of allusions and illustrations that tend to obfuscate evil.
It's great to live in a country where we're allowed to have these differences of opinion. Please feel free to think you're right. I definitely think I am. Have a nice day.
And exactly how are they a "present danger to the nation"? You think they are more danger than ISIS? Than the progressive attack on our Constitution? Than those that want to be parasites on the productive? Than the flood of illegal aliens? How exactly are the Koch brothers more a danger? How has a family that has created massive wealth, not only for themselves, but for thousands of others, have enabled a comfortable lifestyle for millions of Americans and contributed massively to eleemosynary causes a "danger to the nation"?
[[ Lee - I don't want to peek - is he ranting? ]]
No Rick - you are the one ranting and don't have the onions to back up your accusations. Just keep collecting your oil checks and sucking off the public teet. But you are getting heavy.
Don't bother to look Rick, once again ec is just pointing out your ignorance and stupidity. Also asks, which you never able to do, is backup your statements. Your delusional obsession with the Koch is comical, just shows how far out of touch you lefties are...
I didn't make that accusation. I'll leave that to others to conclude.
Bingo. Highlights how correct Alfred was. Pick a bogie man (the Kock Brothers) and attack. No specifics, no substantiation, just stick with the narrative, facts be damned. .
dup eliminated
It would seem that some folks are forgetting our code of conduct when it comes to comments, particularly these aspects:
Please study these aspects of the code, and then look at your own comments, both in this thread and elsewhere on the site. If what you've written falls under any one of these aspects, please don't let it happen again.
We'd hate to ban folks, but we also don't have the time to spend 24 hours a day monitoring comments. And, frankly, we really aspire to a higher level of debate.
The other option would be to not allow comments at all.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
http://www.alec.org/
http://betterutah.org/alec-members-in-the-utah-state-legislature/
My fight is not with conservatives per se, but with crooked politicians of any kind; with those who try to use money and power to cause harm to those less powerful; and with people who willfully make the decision to remain ignorant by obtaining their information only in one of the extremist echo chambers (left or right) rather than making an effort to learn the truth by stepping out of the chamber of propaganda into the light.
Alfred, with all due respect, I believe that people who are making an effort to help advance progress in the alternative energy industry are real American heros who are willing to put their dollars where it counts. While the extractive industries' push for continued subsidies for their industry, they continue to push for legislation or other policies that will hamper competition. Our legislators should have the good sense to level the playing field. But the playing field now has so much money piled on one end that the other team has to climb a very steep hill to reach the goal post.
It's also not necessary for everyone to spend $24,000 for roof top solar panels. If thousands of people across the country were to spend whatever they can afford, their collective contributions would have a terrific impact diminishing the harmful consequences of our dependence upon fossil fuels. Replacing those fuels cannot and will not be instaneous. But if we work together wisely, step by step, inch by inch, foot by foot, we will find ourselves far ahead of where we are now and where we will be in the future if we refuse to look to the future.
It absolutely stumps me as I try to understand why people who claim to support American businesses, jobs and leadership in the world are willing to sacrifice the opportunities that alternative energy offers.
I believe that we MUST start looking to the future and not try to cling to the past. If we don't, our grandkids are going to be in an awful pickle.
(edit)
Nice post Lee, I to find myself somewhat in disagreement with Mr. Runte on this issue.
Pure fantasy
More fantasy. Perhaps you could provide some examples.
Resisting the subsidization of uneconomic activites is hardly a "sacrifice".
Just my opinion but, having the option and understanding that I have to choose one or the other, I would greatly prefer a 50 acre solar or wind plant than a 50 acre coal plant.
When we owned a farm in rural virginia, a power company wanted to put in a new coal fired plant less than 10 miles away. Besides the air pollution, we would have had to contend with the fly ash disposal (on-site), the slurry ponds, the increased rail and truck traffic. Property values went down but, lucky for us, rebounded a bit when the project was canceled.
Yes, any form of energy generation has its drawbacks. But I like breathing clean air and drinking clean water more than I like looking at beautiful landscapes. The footprint of a wind or solar plant is much more limited when pollution (air and water) is taken into consideration.
The problem with your argument dahkota is that a 50 acre solar farm would generate about 10 megawatts of power. New coal plants are generating 100s or even 1000s of megawatts. You would need a 500 or 1000 or 10,000 acre solar farm to be equivalent.
Not to mention - you still need the coal plant for when the sun ain't shining.
The truth is worldwide humans keep digging themselves into an ever bigger hole when it comes to energy and natural resources. It is not very difficult to reduce our electricity use in our homes. The real problems arise in moving freight in trucks and people in cars, and having standby power available for our home and business electricity needs. Conservation and more efficient use of energy will put off the day of reckoning in developed countries. But as long as population contiues to grow and everyone wants a higher standard of living the end of prosperity will come for all but the rich and powerful.
Population growth may be an issue but there is nothing impossible about higher standards of living and prosperity for all. Thats a key difference between the left and right. The left wants to divide the pie, the right wants to grow it. Everyones' share won't be equal by everyones' share will be larger.
Wow! I didn't mean to start a battle, but that is what professors do. We ask everyone to THINK. Then think. Think of how complicit all of us are in the SYSTEM as it exists. We don't escape the system just by feel-good projects or by laying the blame on someone else. And we certainly won't escape it by laying waste to our public lands. Yes, a 50 acre wind farm is less of an eyesore than a 50-acre coal-fired plant. Only there are no 50-acre wind farms. They are all 10,000 acres plus. The one the judge just stopped near Searchlight, Nevada, plans to consume 18,000 acres. Duke Energy was the one proposing that.
Aren't the Koch brothers owners and/or investors in Duke Energy? They most certainly are in General Electric. And what about your pension fund? Or your IRA? Do you think you can esape the SYSTEM? Do you think you are not rubbing shoulders with the Koch brothers already? Or at least Warren Buffett? Believe me, most of us are in bed with them. "We have met the enemy, and he is us." We own what they own--the problem of too much growth. Only they know how to profit from it, and that includes "word magic" that makes us forget how much WE own.
That's the whole point of word magic--to make you stop thinking. Choose a word or phrase that sounds benign. Meanwhile, do you think your "team," whatever it is, is not trying to do the same? Don't blame the Koch brothers. Try Hillary Clinton, allegedly the next president of the United States. Do you think she will refuse a contribution from the Big Boys? If you believe that, you forgot that series of articles in the New York Times about Tyson's Foods when Bill ran for president. Why is Tyson's Foods in Arkansas? Well, read the New York Times.
We're all in it. We're all part of it. And none of us is going to escape, UNLESS we start THINKING rather than bubbling over with word magic ourselves. I avoid labels like the plague. I don't care who is Democrat or who is Republican. In my writing, I only report what people DO. A Republican started the National Park Service, and a Mormon Republican at that. Good people are on both sides of the isle, and lots of stinkers, too. How did we start tossing out the labels? Because the labelers don't want us to THINK. They want us to shortuct the issues--and the problems. Make it sound benign and the people will believe us. Just say that our Big Stink is "green."
Yes, there are good people pursuing these issues and technologies. But I don't see them on our public lands. I see another Big Stink sold as progress. Well, if a 40-story turbine is progress for a pidding three megawatts of power--and I need 100 of those monsters to make the progress work--I'll pass for now, thank you. Did you know that the base of every one of those towers is a concrete block the size of a house? How much CO2 did making the concrete generate? Ah, but the Wizard of Oz isn't telling you that. Don't look behind the green curtain. After all, it is green!
I'm ready for what is really green--controlling our population. Oops! Can't go there! Can't say that! Why indeed? Who is saying the loudest that population is no longer the problem? Might that be your "team," perhaps? How much more pleasant it is to say there is a "Green Revolution" that will feed all of the hungry for centuries to come. So, if all us would just put solar panels on our rooftops, paradise would be here. It sounds wonderful, and I do want to believe it. I really, really do. It's just that my mother taught me never to look behind the curtain. The solution was above my shoulders all along.
I guess EC is right. Believe what you would like to believe and you will have a happier life. We all end up in the same place regardless.
Much truth here Roger, but it is challenging to participate in the discussions, informative also. It is interesting to read the debates over neo-liberal economic policies, that is by deregulating all business activities and eliminating the "evil" governmental oversight, not to mention the privatization of all public assets, a "true" free market will prevail and all will prosper, an economic utopia so to speak. Depending on were you sit in the economic pecking order, there are many who are finding that this is not the case. I think Alfred Runte has a point, population increase and all the demands it creates, is an issue, how to address it remains to be seen. The Sierra Club has an interesting position on population, "every child a wanted child", that would be a great start, but try to say even that, and see how far you get in the debate over the reproductive health choices of women. Thanks Roger, it can be discouraging at times.
Must be pretty depressing to not believe you can improve your standing in life. I can guarantee, you won't improve your standing if you don't believe - or rely on someone else to provide for you.
Some interesting comments here on solar panels in cloudy areas or on cloudy days. Less efficient, but the annual light is more important than the occasional cloudy day.
Now you are engaging in Lee's tactics. Who is advocating "deregulating all business activities"? Who is call for the "elmination of government oversight"? Who is calling for "the privatization of all public assets"? Noone I know.
Unless it is that cloudy day.
Solar starts out as a more expensive way to generate electricity. Add to that the need for a back-up system (BTW Lee that's what your "premium" is paying for) and the cost skyrockets.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/opinion/kohn-how-kochs-should-spend-their-...
Should the Koch brothers want to use the money they've set aside for political giving, along with money to be contributed by like-minded people, actually to help the American people -- and the rest of the world -- instead of influencing election outcomes for their singular bottom line, here is what $889 million can buy:
• 559,119,496 meals for the homeless -- equal to 916 meals for every homeless person in America for one year;
•19,525 new teachers for New York City public school students -- or 24,170 new teachers in Birmingham, Alabama, where first-year teachers are paid less;
• 15,180 entry-level psychologists at Veterans Administration hospitals, helping and healing servicemen and women all across the country;
• Clean water for 29,633,333 people around the globe;
• Give all $889 million to Save Darfur, to help 3 million people displaced in refugee camps and as a belated wedding present for George and Amal Clooney;
• Create 222 endowed Ayn Rand chairs of economics, politics and greed at Harvard University (I'm just joking -- also Harvard doesn't need money.);
• 1,781,563 iPads, to increase technology access and learning for children in school districts bankrupted by tax cuts;
• 7,408,333 goats to provide milk and meat to rural families all across the world;
• 88,900,000 football pumps, perhaps all of which we should send to the New England Patriots;
• 5,229 new single-axle snowplow trucks (just sayin');
• One year's supply of birth control pills for 1,481,666 women;
• 437,931,034 gallons of gas at today's low prices, helping millions of low-income families afford to get to work and school;
• Pay off New Jersey's entire fiscal year 2014 budget gap resulting from Gov. Chris Christie's magical accounting -- and have $89 million left over;
• 34,297,839 mosquito nets, to help reduce incidents of malaria, which kills an estimated 500,000 people each year -- mostly children;
Or, finally, instead of hiding in the shadows of dark-money organizations gambling $889 million to try and buy our elections, the Koch brothers could be more direct. They and their fellow conservative donors could give $1,201 each to 740,043 voters in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin -- swing states that Obama won in 2012, but only by a 740,043 total margin. Yes, that would be buying votes. But isn't that what they are already trying to do?
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
One thing that happens with cutting edge technology is it starts out way more expensive because of the research and development. Wind and solar started out way less efficiant than it is today. And the technology is still advancing. It usually costs more to the first buyers of new cutting edge ideas but over the long term those first buyers are needed to help fund the growth in the technology. Although there are lots of fossil fuel in the world and may last far into the future, they are finite resources while wind and solar are not.
I am not close to cutting off my use of fossil fuels. But I am willing to buy more efficiant products and better insulated homes and ultimately try and use some alternative power. I think for many of us, thats the direction we feel is needed. Whether the gov't helps in directing us down the path is a worthy debate. My vote is probably in favor but how much we can afford to spend is the real issue. Things like solar and wind may take 10 years or so to break even, so it is an investment in the future savings. Some of these will be obsolete in 10 years, so who knows.
Pages