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.”
Comments
So 7 items, most of which I would argue the GOP still supports in the context of 1956 standards.
How many dozens others would you reject today? Probably most.
If the option where the 1956 GOP platform or Obama's today. I would easily pick the 1956 GOP platform. How about you Lee - which would you pick?
According to Mr Runte Malthusian view of the world, population control is the silver bullet. As usual, one needs to be careful what one wishes for. Without population growth, we get less economic activity and therefore less means to pay for our pension/social security or National parks. While it's pretty clear that this planet cannot support an unlimited population, limiting growth wouldn't be without its own problems.
In other words, Zebulon, you agree there are limits, of which, yes, population is only one. Just this morning, on page A10 of The Wall Street Journal, this headline caught my eye: "Asia Leads World in Dumping Plastic in Seas." China is first and the United States ranks 20th--nothing to be proud about, but a pittance in comparsion to those countries whose population growth exeeds our own. The WSJ's article, by the way, was originally reported in Science, so no one came blame the Koch brothers for downplaying our complicity in the destruction of the seven seas.
China is far in front. "Ma Jun, an environmental activist based in Bejing, said the government has greatly expanded waste collection and treatment in cities in recent years. Big supermarkets have reduced the use of plastic bags or have begun issuing biodegradable sacks. BUT THE RAPID EXPANSION OF CITIES (my italics) has outpaced such efforts, Mr. Ma said. The Chinese government 'had made great effort to treat household refuse, but with the rapid development of urbanization, the ability to dispose of garbage is insufficient,' said Mr. Ma of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs."
So, what are we to make of this? In the first place, is not urbanization "code" for population growth? In the second place, are these not the people we are "waiting for" until 2030 to address the pressing issue of climate change? Certainly, in the memorandum of understanding President Obama just struck with China, he said they will be on board by 2030. Only 15 more years to wait, during which, in the meantime, by 2025, "the amount of plastic waste fouling the seas [may] equal 10 bags full of plastic per foot of coastline."
Gee. I wonder what kind of impact that will have on our national parks? We only have all of those national seashores allegedly about to disappear under rising seas. The point here is that long before that ever happens, they will likely be encased in plastic from end to end.
How is it that we can reasonably expect so-called green energy to save us from examples like this? I agree. Malthus was a couple of centuries early, but who is to say he was wrong? Call it what you will--urbanization, deforestation, erosion, pollution, etc., etc., etc. All are code for things "out of hand." If we don't get them back in hand, what good does it do to grow technology in a different form?
Once upon a time, the environmental movement taught the facts of growth. Now it teaches wizardry. China says no? Then we'll wait. Well, if the problem is so pressing, how is it we can afford to wait?
Is that good public policy? is it worth losing your public lands over? In that case, enjoy your walk on the beach, but please don't complain about the plastic. It happened to come all the way from China. You can fish it out and call it "exotic." But don't blame the Koch brothers for putting it there. Your president did that by agreeing to wait.
Zeb - worry not. You and I alone could put together a list just of the religious movements, who mandate making as many more little believers as possible, to say nothing of the Duggars of the world. Population growth is an out of control avalanche, and all the ZPG folks in the world can only mitigate it in the slightest increment. Short of a world-wide sterilizing virus - yeah, we've all seen movies like that - eventually drilling in ANWR will finally be eliminated by covering the pumpjacks with high rise apartments. I'm afraid the fear of wishing for stopping population growth will not be realized.
Alfred Runte, a very informative post, thanks. I am not sure all the blame falls on the President as it should include the global corporate monopolies, the Koch brothers among them. Namoi Kline makes some excellent points on this issue. Growth and the concentration of wealth drives much of politics at all levels, but yes I agree, population, growth, and the waste it generates is the key issue. Thank you Zeb, you are right, over population doctrine has been around for a long time, but I do think the scientific community and environmental historians feel we are reaching some unsustainable limits.
Could you identify those "corporate monopolies"?
Ron, I really would like to cross paths and discuss. At least then you couldn't run from the questions. But then your are more honest than Lee and Rick. You don't pretend to hide.
Come to Breck and stay as my guest. Or, name a park and we can meet there.
ec, you provide a very important service on the site. I'm sure your antagonizers would prefer a big lovefest but that would not get us out of this mess. Rock On, Sir!
I agree, I wish I wouldn't let these progressives determined to ruin America get under my skin. The President's agreement with China is so disgustingly laughable.