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
"China has announced its intent to peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, and to strive to peak earlier. The announcement did not specify at what level China’s emissions would peak, though multiple scenarios that peak around 2030 show peak emissions around 10 billion metric tons per year."
"Scenarios that show China peaking in 2030 assume near-term action by China. For instance, the MIT scenario assumes a carbon tax will take effect in 2015."
When you talk of "multiple scenarios" and "assume things" you talk of conjecture. Noone knows how high the emissions will go before 2030 nor whether China will follow through thereafter. Not a mistake, absolute fact.
Funny how those on the left think that someone that wants to create and keep their wealth is selfish or greedy but those that want to take it away are virtuous.
China's economy is declining and Obamas agreement only asks to cap its emissions by 2030. So China continues on as normal while we self impose restrictions that hurt our economy. Only an America hating delusional lefty could think this was a good deal. China is laughing at us and sadly like the rest of the world...
In the Tragedy of the Commons, we are reminded that voluntarism selects for its own failure. The person who volunteers responsibility is soon done in by everyone who eschews it. In recent years, a pile of academic literature has protested this concept: President Obama is obviously in that camp. How would JFK have responded? Or Richard Nixon? Certainly, not by volunteering in hopes that the world would grow to "like us." After all, they had witnessed World War II. Every time Britain bent, Hitler went for more. "While England Slept," as JFK put it. In that world view, China will go for more--go for broke. Obama is simply betting that they won't. Obama is a child of guilt. He may be president, but he can no more escape his experinces than we can. He believes the United States is the problem.
I still believe in the lessons of history. Unquestionably, the United States has led the world in pollution, but it has also led the world in solving the problem. In plastics alone, we are now less than one percent of emissions. The plastics collecting in the oceans are now mostly from Asia and other countries trying to "catch up." JFK likely would agree we owe the world "something," but not a guilt trip, as it were. If China benefits by pirating our technology, why can't they benefit by stealing our pollution technology? Because they don't care to believe in the rights of the individual. If millions die from pollution, so be it.
EC stumbles over that from time to time, but that is what he is driving at. Why blame wealth? Why blame success? It has made us who we are. And the basis of that is a firm belief in the individual. Few other countries in the world come close.
If president, how would I have handled the agreement with China? I would have kicked them in the butt. Steal our pollution technology while you're stealing our inventions, and by the way, feel free to establish more national parks. And if you want to sell us your products, take a reasonable amount of ours in return--not just scrap metal, cardboard, and shipping containers. But then, I am still a firm believer in the Tragedy of the Commons. He who volunteers gets run over by those taking advantage. It's like giving everyone in class an A. The next semester your class is filled with students, but none of them wants to learn a thing.
As one who understands very well the perils of volunteering, I have to agree with Dr. Runte. But at the same time, if no one volunteers and at least tries to make some progress, where will we be sometime down the road?
As for wealth; no problem with EARNING it fairly and squarely. But when it is grabbed at the expense of others, there is a big problem. Too often now, American big business grabs while causing ever increasing harm for the very people who make their existence possible. The employees who are shafted when promised pensions are destroyed. Employees who are paid so little they must depend upon food stamps -- even some with advance educations. Homeowners who purchased homes in good faith only to discover that they had been sold a bill of goods. Bankers gambling with their depositors' money. Corporations that were bailed out by tax dollars from the very people they had harmed.
I could go on, but what's the point. As Rick has pointed out, some of them simply aren't selfish enough.
Lee - we live in a free country. Noone is compelled to enter into any transaction unwillingly (except the purchase of healthcare). You don't want your money "gambled" by the bank, don't give your money to the bank. You don't think you are getting paid enough - get a different job. You didn't do your due diligence on buying a home - thats your fault not someone elses.
I agree, the theft of GM and Chrysler and give away of those companies to the unions was a disgraceful act by the government.
Here are a couple of links to articles pointing out a rare example of corporate responsibility.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2015/01/13/aetna-plans-to-ra...
http://jimhightower.com/node/8547#.VOEcPy6rE2M
Gosh, by raising pay for a few thousand employees, this company that will net a profit of about $2.4 billion will spend perhaps $25 million of that to boost some of their lower paid employees -- AND THEIR FAMILIES, THE COMMUNITIES THEY LIVE IN, AND ALL THE REST OF AMERICA . What do they expect to gain from the investment? Better employees, lower turnover and savings that will result from better employee quality, morale, and retention.
A rare glimmer of corporate common sense. This is the kind of fair play I wish we could see more often.
(I know this isn't directly related to national parks, but consider that our parks are just a tiny sliver of the challenges facing America today. And in the intricate ecology of economics and social issues, it's true that if you pluck at anything, you will find it is hooked to everything else. Muir was right in this, too.)
Come to think of it, it's not only in the corporate world that employees are used and abused. Ever heard of NPS seasonals ?
Yes Lee, Aetna decided it was in their best interest to make those changes. If it turns out not to be the case, you can be assured they (rightlfully) will reverse their actions.
Oh - and by the way the banks weren't the ones to inflict the harm nor were they ""bailed out". The government didn't loose a penny to the banks. In the aggregate the government was paid back 100% plus interest, dividends and capital gains.
I'm not entirely sure how we got from solar arrays and desert wildlife to bank bailouts and Aetna, but if the thread has played out (which it seems it has), can we turn to another topic? Trademarks, perhaps, solutions to parking woes and pavement expansion or even the Cape Hatteras joy riders?
Hang the Cape Hatteras joy riders.
From this morning's WALL STREET JOURNAL. I couldn't say it better myself. Note especially his comments about the billionaires and big corporations behind the so-called "green" energy movement. What do they have in store for our public lands? Take a look at Oregon's Columbia River Gorge.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-oregon-is-greener-than-thou-1424218950
Alfred - was on a plane for a couple of hours yesterday and got deeper into your book. The fight over the valley floor is quite enlightening. Neither side was fighting for preservation of the natural it was only a fight over how to manipulate the environment and which "man" made version would previal - the Indians' or the White mans'. Doesn't seem too far from the arguments we see today.
Here is a link to a fascinating idea I just found in today's Gizmag.
A good example of what creative minds can do. Will be interesting to see if it works.
http://www.gizmag.com/portland-lucidpipe-power-system/36130/?utm_source=...
I don't know much about desert ecosystems. It seems to me if it is federally designated desert and solar panels could be put somewhere else first, then they should.
Buxton, I mostly agree with you. I have never understood the idea to put wind turbines off the NC coast. That environment is very hostile with strong storms, high salinity, and shipping traffic. It's likely this will be another green movement failure but could create some good fishing structure after they are abandoned.
The extra 0.0001 mole fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't seem to be making any difference.
Pages