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
I agree, I wish I wouldn't let these conservatives determined to ruin America get under my skin. The President's agreement with China is a great step in the right direction.
While the U.S. has been reducing its emissions and China's have historically increased, the agreement might help spur China in the right direction. IF the Chinese stick to the agreement, their emissions will begin coming down, too. Because of the agreement, their efforts may become more vigorous and their progress in environmental improvements may well be hastened.
It's not a very big stretch to think that if the U.S. had not passed clean air and water standards when we did, then our millions of tons of CO2 per year might well be very similar to those produced by China.
China is playing catch-up. The agreement is an important part of helping them move in that direction. Once upon a time, the U.S. had to start on the road to cleaner environment. How many years has it taken and how much farther do we still have to go? Now, hopefully, China is making their start toward a cleaner environment.
We can either look forward toward a better future as progressives or we can continue to try to stand still or slide backwards as conservatives.
I know what the better choice is.
The strawmen are alive and well.
The real issue is not what someone may say in a post, or what words they may choose to try to say it. The real issue in this string is a serious environmental concern.
When trolls try to derail the conversation by attacking the messengers rather than trying to rationally address the issue, nothing is gained and a lot is lost. Unfortunately, the same sort of thing happens in Congress and some of our popular media.
It has been very refreshing to read posts by Ron Mackie, Rick, Dr. Runte and a few others. But trying to defend them and others from troll attacks is fruitless.
That's why the IGNORE button is such a blessing.
Then you should use it instead of hiding behing its existence to shield you from having to substantiate your claims and accusations.
I'm sure other readers are intelligent enough to determine whether or not things have been substantiated or not. The opinion of one does not cast the final ballot.
What some of us try to do here is point people in the direction of well balanced material that might help them actually learn something. But that will succeed only if some other readers will actually READ the entire article posted instead of stopping only at the headline or with a few points of summary. Becoming informed and being able to balance opposing opinions takes some real effort. If one makes that effort, they might be surprised to realize their biases can actually change -- usually to a more moderate stance.
Now, what do you think of the CO2 agreement with China?
I think beach's chart speaks for itself. Even if CO2 is an issue, this agreement doesn't do a thing. All it does it put the US at a competitive disadvantage which will stunt job creaton and hurt the middle class.
I think the agreement with China is a step in the right direction but whether it accomplishes anything remains to be seen. Regarding the back and forth on this site and others it remindes me that besides death and taxes being universal problems affecting everyone there is a new one in the internet age. Everything you say will be used against you by someone.
I wouldn't necessarily stand with Beach's chart, especially without any attribution. The World Resources Institute seems a bit more bullish of the agreement.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/numbers-china-us-climate-agreement
So, too, is Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/11/obama_s...
There are more stories that say it's a good deal, but that's a good start.