JohnnyD 0
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Maybe its just me, but the article doesn't really make any sense.
The whole movement/agenda makes no sense....
What the article says is that she intends to completely block new development on those lands, but somehow its being called a win-win for conservation and energy interests. How is preventing renewable energy from being generated in the middle of an unused desert a win for anyone? Makes no sense.
It is not that it is being prevented. But rather, WHERE it is being prevented.
You can have those collectors shade your house, but not her Desert or Kennedy's ocean.........
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
Same thought process for the Dems who want to raise taces. Why care if you dont have to pay them....
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteSame thought process for the Dems who want to raise taces. Why care if you dont have to pay them....
It's the rich you are thinking of who avoid taxes, have accounts in the Cayman Islands, and are the biggest NIMBYs. Doesn't matter which party they support.
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
Personally I have very little sympathy for those who want to preserve the desert. Desert is what happens to land after everything else dies. However If private money was spent to purchase this land for conservation purposes then they should be conserved.
Perhaps these private companies that want to develop renewable energy should purchase their own land to make a profit on instead of using the taxpayers'.
Perhaps these private companies that want to develop renewable energy should purchase their own land to make a profit on instead of using the taxpayers'.
QuotePersonally I have very little sympathy for those who want to preserve the desert. Desert is what happens to land after everything else dies. However If private money was spent to purchase this land for conservation purposes then they should be conserved.
Perhaps these private companies that want to develop renewable energy should purchase their own land to make a profit on instead of using the taxpayers'.
??
No, desert is what you get in a climate with little rain. And this isn't Arabian dessert with nothing but sand, this is the California desert, with a lot of scrub. Much of it is at slight elevation and an ideal location for solar power.
The BLM made the land available for just about anything but mining, so these outfits have been working with that premise. Hopefully the outcome is intelligent use and location of all these projects. Solar power should be a major component to the energy mix for southern regions of the country, and the Mojave is a very good proving ground for new design.
BTW, the price of CA land makes private ownership a bit cost prohibitive.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteSame thought process for the Dems who want to raise taces. Why care if you dont have to pay them....
It's the rich you are thinking of who avoid taxes, have accounts in the Cayman Islands, and are the biggest NIMBYs. Doesn't matter which party they support.
You mean like Obamas Cabinet choices right?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
I realise the BLM has opened it up to other uses. I think that is a violation of the trust as well.
The price of land needs to be incorporated into the price of the energy or consumption decisions will not reflect the true cost. Loss of habitat for cacti and tortoises, loss of opportunity to build suburbs and strip malls, whatever. If government land is used for commercial purposes (should be avoided in general) it should be leased out at market rates.
The price of land needs to be incorporated into the price of the energy or consumption decisions will not reflect the true cost. Loss of habitat for cacti and tortoises, loss of opportunity to build suburbs and strip malls, whatever. If government land is used for commercial purposes (should be avoided in general) it should be leased out at market rates.
Quote
Maybe its just me, but the article doesn't really make any sense.
The whole movement/agenda makes no sense....
Feinstien doesn't make sense.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
GeorgiaDon 379
The agenda makes no sense to people who are unable to see beyond their own selfish needs. No-one is saying that solar facilities shouldn't be built, it's just a matter of taking the time to place them where their impact will be minimized, rather than just responding to one factor, in this case "we have this land now, fuck everything else including the people who helped us buy it". The participation, logistically and financially, of nature conservation groups indicates that this land in particular harbors an especially rich diversity of species, and/or substantial populations of endangered species. Plants and animals are actually remarkably diverse in the Mojave (unlike the Gobi or Sahara), but they aren't evenly distributed, there are "hot spots" of diversity where development could dramatically damage total numbers and genetic diversity, and there are large areas that are much less sensitive. Imagine a meteorite landing in New York City vs the middle of Kansas, if you need a human impact analogy. Why not take a bit of time to place these facilities intelligently? The article does make sense, which would be clear if people could actually read it without their anti-environmental glasses on:QuoteThe whole movement/agenda makes no sense....
See, no conflict. Unless, of course, you insist on imposing an ethic that only allows for immediate human economic needs, and does not permit consideration of “esthetic values” such as appreciation for wild places and biological diversity. Some people's vision of an ideal future, nothing but oil rigs, transmission lines, highways, and strip malls from sea to shining sea, is other people's vision of a nightmare.QuoteBut Karen Douglas, chairman of the California Energy Commission, said Feinstein's proposal could be a "win-win" for energy and conservation. The governor's office said Douglas was speaking on the administration's behalf.
"The opportunity we see in the Feinstein bill is to jump-start our own efforts to find the best sites for development and to come up with a broader conservation plan that mitigates the impact of the development," Douglas said.
Douglas said that if the national monument lines were drawn without consideration of renewable energy then a conflict was likely, but it's early enough in the planning process that she's confident the state will be able to get more solar and wind projects up and running without hurting the environment.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
But it seems that all I hear about renewable energy sources are things like "it's coming, it's just a few years away, we just need to plan a little more" like you say. When the hell are we going to get our thumbs out of our asses and DO some of this shit?
Yeah, it's happening. I'm sure posters here can point to this facility or that installation that's using some form of renewable energy. Last I heard, BillVon's house alone was supplying his entire subdivision's energy needs, right (seriously, good job, Bill)? But compared to the country's (or better yet, the world's) needs, these renewable resources are small enough to round down to zero.
I appreciate your desire to protect what we have for future generations, but if we don't get moving on this stuff then future generations are FUBAR anyhow.
Hey, that's a good point: if the desert conservationists get their way and keep stalling on renewable energy, there will be even more desert for them to care for in the future. Lots more.
Elvisio "that's what they're up to" Rodriguez
Yeah, it's happening. I'm sure posters here can point to this facility or that installation that's using some form of renewable energy. Last I heard, BillVon's house alone was supplying his entire subdivision's energy needs, right (seriously, good job, Bill)? But compared to the country's (or better yet, the world's) needs, these renewable resources are small enough to round down to zero.
I appreciate your desire to protect what we have for future generations, but if we don't get moving on this stuff then future generations are FUBAR anyhow.
Hey, that's a good point: if the desert conservationists get their way and keep stalling on renewable energy, there will be even more desert for them to care for in the future. Lots more.
Elvisio "that's what they're up to" Rodriguez
An ethic that only allows for immediate human needs? How about an ethic that allows for human needs.
Feinstein is going over the edge. So much of what I am seeing is an ethic that takes human needs and discards them. Completely.
I live in the Central Valley of California. An issue like water don't mean shit to 99% of the population - especially in the population centers. These people can feel nice about protecting the environment and smelt in the Sacramento delta.
Of course, it means that there are no water deliveries to the west valley - which I believe is unprecedented. Needless to say, the economy has been ravaged. No water means no crops. No crops means no work and no product.
Feinstein has been putting through a bill the restore substantial flow to the San Joaquin River. There are no plans to provide water from other sources. Meaning less water for the east side farmers. Fewer crops. Unemployment. And higher food prices.
This is the human cost that has been and is continuing to be overlooked. People and families are being devastated.
You think people are suffering from Madoff? They are. And they are suffering from political decisions that favor the delta smelt over an entire local economy affecting a few million.
And the najor voting blocs in SF, LA and San Diego just don't consider a bunch of uneducated cracker Okie farmers (backwards Republican voters, no doubt - they are probably Christians, too) and their immigrant farmworker families to be more important than ensuring that fish flourish.
Feinstein has been the most vocal in forwarding policies that favor the environment - seemingly at all costs. This solar power objection is but another example of her seeming insistance to prevent any policy that may help people at the expense of something nonhuman.
I fear that some insect will invade that will lay waste to, for example, the citrus crop. Control would only be possible by an aerial spraying program that would harm something like earwigs. Thus, she would ban spraying - farmers and workers be damned. All done to the applause of the enlightened coastal residents.
I'm serious when I say that I think that California should be split into two different states - Coastal California (or Enlightened/Smarter/People's Republic Of California) and Lesser California.
Hell, I'd even be willing to be part of Lesser California and take all of California's debt. I'm sure we could pay it off and let the other California kill itself.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Feinstein is going over the edge. So much of what I am seeing is an ethic that takes human needs and discards them. Completely.
I live in the Central Valley of California. An issue like water don't mean shit to 99% of the population - especially in the population centers. These people can feel nice about protecting the environment and smelt in the Sacramento delta.
Of course, it means that there are no water deliveries to the west valley - which I believe is unprecedented. Needless to say, the economy has been ravaged. No water means no crops. No crops means no work and no product.
Feinstein has been putting through a bill the restore substantial flow to the San Joaquin River. There are no plans to provide water from other sources. Meaning less water for the east side farmers. Fewer crops. Unemployment. And higher food prices.
This is the human cost that has been and is continuing to be overlooked. People and families are being devastated.
You think people are suffering from Madoff? They are. And they are suffering from political decisions that favor the delta smelt over an entire local economy affecting a few million.
And the najor voting blocs in SF, LA and San Diego just don't consider a bunch of uneducated cracker Okie farmers (backwards Republican voters, no doubt - they are probably Christians, too) and their immigrant farmworker families to be more important than ensuring that fish flourish.
Feinstein has been the most vocal in forwarding policies that favor the environment - seemingly at all costs. This solar power objection is but another example of her seeming insistance to prevent any policy that may help people at the expense of something nonhuman.
I fear that some insect will invade that will lay waste to, for example, the citrus crop. Control would only be possible by an aerial spraying program that would harm something like earwigs. Thus, she would ban spraying - farmers and workers be damned. All done to the applause of the enlightened coastal residents.
I'm serious when I say that I think that California should be split into two different states - Coastal California (or Enlightened/Smarter/People's Republic Of California) and Lesser California.
Hell, I'd even be willing to be part of Lesser California and take all of California's debt. I'm sure we could pay it off and let the other California kill itself.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
GeorgiaDon 379
I know a bit about the water situation in California, and I certainly don't have any magic solution to that particular issue. I do have to say though that these issues don't come out of the blue, everybody can see them coming even decades in advance but they become a crisis because no-one does anything until it is a crisis. Here in Georgia water is also a limited resource, believe it or not, and Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been battling in court for decades over water from the Chatahoochee River. In the meantime Atlanta has been allowed to grow without any consideration whatsoever about where the water will come from, and for decades the city has taken a larger and larger share of the river to meet its needs. Then we get a drought, as we have had for the past 3 years, and suddenly downstream communities are left high and dry. Florida and Alabama go to court to try to get Georgia to stop hogging all the water, and Georgia politicians start bleating about water being taken from good God-fearing Georgians to "save some endangered clams" down in the Gulf. Well, the "endangered clams" (mussels, actually), are just indicator species that the entire esturine ecosystem is shutting down because of the lack of fresh water inflow. So what, you may ask? Well, that ecosystem is critical to the oyster fishery, the shrimp fishery, and also many commercial fish species that use the estuary for breeding. So Georgia politicians don't want to sacrifice future tax revenues, not to mention aggravating voters and donors, by restricting building permits, and Georgia taxpayers think they have a God-given right to water their lawns five time a week, and as a result coastal fisheries collapse and thousands of fishermen (fisherpersons?) see their livelihood disappear. Then to top it off people complain that they can't buy honest-to-goodness Gulf shrimp anymore, all they can find in the stores is imported from Chile or wherever. Guess what, it's all "human needs". The crisis comes about because no-one is willing to face facts, that resources are limited, their availability may change over time, and we really need to plan for the future.
In the initial issue under discussion, no-one in the article that the OP posted said that solar facilities should not be built. All that was stated (that I read anyway) was that maybe we shouldn't destroy especially critical habitat, that was paid for in part by conservation groups because of its unique resources. Why not take a reasonable amount of care to put such facilities in places where they don't unintentionally, because of lack of foresight and planning, have a more negative impact than they need to?
As far as your insect laying waste to the citrus crop example is concerned, such an insect does exist already, the Mediterranian fruit fly (commonly called the Med fly). The USDA has a program to develop effective, low-non-target impact methods to control the flies, which includes collaborating with European scientists to study the biology of the fly in its native habitat, where it isn't a problem because it is controlled by native predators and diseases. It was specifically this program that Palin mocked as an example of wasteful government spending. The problem with aerial spraying is that it often also destroys the beneficial insect populations too, such as honeybees and predators that control yet other potentially harmful insects like (for example) citrus scale or stinkbugs. Again, a little foresight, in this case being prepared with intelligent, effective control measures for a pest that we can be sure will become a big issue, (as it is already a big pest elsewhere and it disperses very effectively), could save us big problems down the road. But, as in all too many cases, foresight is sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. Then, when the shit does hit the fan, it becomes "won't someone think of the children" (or farmworkers, or whoever).
Out of curiosity, what plans had been made for the day when there was no more water left to take from the San Joaquin River? Was it assumed that there would never at any time in the future be a drought, or was there a "buffer" left so that even in a drought, with less water flow, farms would still be assured of an adequate water supply? Or did people do like they have done here, look at a small sample of years with unusually high rainfall (or water flow), make plans based only on that, build until every available drop was sucked out of the river, and then be suprised when water availability changes (due to drought or conflicting demands for the water)? I'm asking just because if they planned prudently and then were sandbagged by political events I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic (which is worth squat I know). And to make it clear, I am sympathetic; most of the people being affected were probably not yet even born when the relevent decisions were being made. It does suck to have to eat someone else's shit sandwich.
Don
In the initial issue under discussion, no-one in the article that the OP posted said that solar facilities should not be built. All that was stated (that I read anyway) was that maybe we shouldn't destroy especially critical habitat, that was paid for in part by conservation groups because of its unique resources. Why not take a reasonable amount of care to put such facilities in places where they don't unintentionally, because of lack of foresight and planning, have a more negative impact than they need to?
As far as your insect laying waste to the citrus crop example is concerned, such an insect does exist already, the Mediterranian fruit fly (commonly called the Med fly). The USDA has a program to develop effective, low-non-target impact methods to control the flies, which includes collaborating with European scientists to study the biology of the fly in its native habitat, where it isn't a problem because it is controlled by native predators and diseases. It was specifically this program that Palin mocked as an example of wasteful government spending. The problem with aerial spraying is that it often also destroys the beneficial insect populations too, such as honeybees and predators that control yet other potentially harmful insects like (for example) citrus scale or stinkbugs. Again, a little foresight, in this case being prepared with intelligent, effective control measures for a pest that we can be sure will become a big issue, (as it is already a big pest elsewhere and it disperses very effectively), could save us big problems down the road. But, as in all too many cases, foresight is sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. Then, when the shit does hit the fan, it becomes "won't someone think of the children" (or farmworkers, or whoever).
Out of curiosity, what plans had been made for the day when there was no more water left to take from the San Joaquin River? Was it assumed that there would never at any time in the future be a drought, or was there a "buffer" left so that even in a drought, with less water flow, farms would still be assured of an adequate water supply? Or did people do like they have done here, look at a small sample of years with unusually high rainfall (or water flow), make plans based only on that, build until every available drop was sucked out of the river, and then be suprised when water availability changes (due to drought or conflicting demands for the water)? I'm asking just because if they planned prudently and then were sandbagged by political events I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic (which is worth squat I know). And to make it clear, I am sympathetic; most of the people being affected were probably not yet even born when the relevent decisions were being made. It does suck to have to eat someone else's shit sandwich.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
The whole movement/agenda makes no sense....
What the article says is that she intends to completely block new development on those lands, but somehow its being called a win-win for conservation and energy interests. How is preventing renewable energy from being generated in the middle of an unused desert a win for anyone? Makes no sense.