4 ms·

Ironically, environmental groups sued the project and forced it to be 1/3 the original size. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/21/giant-solar-project-reduced

Ironically, environmental groups sued the project and forced it to be 1/3 the original size. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/21/giant-solar-project-reduced-due-to-environmentalists-opposition/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/21/giant-solar-project-r... Driving down I-5, the smells and sights from some of the cattle operations along the highway are truly horrifying. Harris Ranch just has a bunch of cows standing around in mud (or actually probably their own poop).

shereadsthenews 8y ago
Yes it certainly was a low point for the Sierra Club who have proven unable to grasp the problem of climate change. They are stuck in the Boomer mindset that environmentalism means recycling cans and bottles.
- iso1337 8y ago
  In California, Sierra Club has apparently been co-opted by NIMBYs who basically use environmentalism as a cover to stop any new development against entrenched interests. The good thing (at least wrt to the posted s article) is that the majority of people like to save money, and solar offers a way to save money. So the forces of economics and good policy at the state level will make more solar and storage projects happen.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    The Sierra Club is not an enemy of environmentalism. It's not an advocacy organization for renewable energy, either. It is what it is, and if you are for development of undeveloped land, you are going to find yourself opposed to the Sierra Club. It would seem that you are trying to use environmentalism as cover for other views that you have ("entrenched interests"? Who cares who cuts down a forest, and if they are entrenched or not, if the forest ends up cut down?) I think you should take a hard look at where your personal interests overlap with the mission of the Sierra Club.
    - cobbzilla 8y ago
      > if you are for development of undeveloped land In SF at least, Sierra Club priorities are (at least facially) decidedly more “anti-development” than “pro-environment”. How does one explain their opposition to SB 827 [1] through an environmental lens? If we don’t build more density somewhere then we inevitably get more sprawl. To add some meldodrama, how many people must die in the streets before we move the lever to help our fellow human? To some, “saving the Earth” can justify any amount of human suffering. [1] https://www.ethanelkind.com/sierra-club-now-opposes-one-of-the-most-important-climate-bills-in-california/ https://www.ethanelkind.com/sierra-club-now-opposes-one-of-t...
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  Bruce Hamilton from Sierra Club has a silly moment in Cowspiracy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRl9NzE3gB0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRl9NzE3gB0
  - iso1337 8y ago
    I’m skeptical about the conspiracy claims about how livestock were THE leading cause of GHG and looked up my own sources. The EPA doesn’t place livestock as the leading cause of GHG. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Livestock are an important source (just not the most important). Documentaries with an obvious angle also purposely edit their footage to cast their villains in an unflattering light. There’s also a good blog post by the Union of Concerned Scientists about this very claim. https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review
    - superpermutat0r 8y ago
      Only 1 report lists it like that. Looking at China GHG emissions, food production isn't even in top 10. Although, environmental destruction and pollution, water use, pretty high. So it was funny to see a major face of Sierra Club being totally oblivious to it.
      - iso1337 8y ago
        I agree that environmental costs of beef production are quite high. For me, personally, what also matters is the relative ranking of impacts. I did some research into this and here are the top personal contributors to GHG emissions (presumably for a person living in a developed country). (All figures in tons CO2 per year) Have one fewer child: 58.6 Live car free: 2.4 One less transatlantic flight: 1.6 Buy green energy: 1.47 EV to car free: 1.15 Plant-based diet: 0.82 etc... The interesting thing is that based on this analysis, on average our transportation usage far dominates the plant-based diet aspect. Popular press (with some interesting follow-on thoughts about how most of the emissions are produced by the wealthy). https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/15963544/climate-change-individual-choices https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/1596354... original paper here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sandworm101 8y ago
In their defense, development of a solar plant is still development. Roads will need to be cut. Vegetation will need to be cut. Some animals will not react well. Climate change is all well and good, but we do need to set aside some land to just be land. The sierra folk may have seen this as the thing edge of a large wedge, effectively a rezoning of the land for a more industrial use. It is too easy to judge such things after the fact. Sierra's point would probably be that we should be re re-purposing disused industrial land for solar farms rather than virgin fields.
- llukas 8y ago
  This is nothing in comparison for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining for brown coal/lignite.
- shereadsthenews 8y ago
  This particular project did not require new roads. It is served by county road J1, and I-5. It also was not built on undisturbed land. Prior to the solar plant it was severely degraded range land.
- the8472 8y ago
  > but we do need to set aside some land to just be land. Not if "just be land" also involves cattle farming.
inamberclad 8y ago
Do you have coordinates? I can't find it on satellite imagery. I remember flying over Harris Ranch at about 5000 feet a few years back. Unpressurized light aircraft. I could smell the cattle from up there.
- iso1337 8y ago
  Harris ranch (or whatever big cow op is on I-5). (36.3057129, -120.2729291) The solar project is Panoche Valley, I don’t think any satellite pics are new enough to show progress There’s a map here: https://www.panochevalleysolar.com/project-overview/ https://www.panochevalleysolar.com/project-overview/

shereadsthenews 8y ago

Yes it certainly was a low point for the Sierra Club who have proven unable to grasp the problem of climate change. They are stuck in the Boomer mindset that environmentalism means recycling cans and bottles.

iso1337 8y ago
In California, Sierra Club has apparently been co-opted by NIMBYs who basically use environmentalism as a cover to stop any new development against entrenched interests. The good thing (at least wrt to the posted s article) is that the majority of people like to save money, and solar offers a way to save money. So the forces of economics and good policy at the state level will make more solar and storage projects happen.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  The Sierra Club is not an enemy of environmentalism. It's not an advocacy organization for renewable energy, either. It is what it is, and if you are for development of undeveloped land, you are going to find yourself opposed to the Sierra Club. It would seem that you are trying to use environmentalism as cover for other views that you have ("entrenched interests"? Who cares who cuts down a forest, and if they are entrenched or not, if the forest ends up cut down?) I think you should take a hard look at where your personal interests overlap with the mission of the Sierra Club.
  - cobbzilla 8y ago
    > if you are for development of undeveloped land In SF at least, Sierra Club priorities are (at least facially) decidedly more “anti-development” than “pro-environment”. How does one explain their opposition to SB 827 [1] through an environmental lens? If we don’t build more density somewhere then we inevitably get more sprawl. To add some meldodrama, how many people must die in the streets before we move the lever to help our fellow human? To some, “saving the Earth” can justify any amount of human suffering. [1] https://www.ethanelkind.com/sierra-club-now-opposes-one-of-the-most-important-climate-bills-in-california/ https://www.ethanelkind.com/sierra-club-now-opposes-one-of-t...
superpermutat0r 8y ago
Bruce Hamilton from Sierra Club has a silly moment in Cowspiracy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRl9NzE3gB0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRl9NzE3gB0
- iso1337 8y ago
  I’m skeptical about the conspiracy claims about how livestock were THE leading cause of GHG and looked up my own sources. The EPA doesn’t place livestock as the leading cause of GHG. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Livestock are an important source (just not the most important). Documentaries with an obvious angle also purposely edit their footage to cast their villains in an unflattering light. There’s also a good blog post by the Union of Concerned Scientists about this very claim. https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review
  - superpermutat0r 8y ago
    Only 1 report lists it like that. Looking at China GHG emissions, food production isn't even in top 10. Although, environmental destruction and pollution, water use, pretty high. So it was funny to see a major face of Sierra Club being totally oblivious to it.
    - iso1337 8y ago
      I agree that environmental costs of beef production are quite high. For me, personally, what also matters is the relative ranking of impacts. I did some research into this and here are the top personal contributors to GHG emissions (presumably for a person living in a developed country). (All figures in tons CO2 per year) Have one fewer child: 58.6 Live car free: 2.4 One less transatlantic flight: 1.6 Buy green energy: 1.47 EV to car free: 1.15 Plant-based diet: 0.82 etc... The interesting thing is that based on this analysis, on average our transportation usage far dominates the plant-based diet aspect. Popular press (with some interesting follow-on thoughts about how most of the emissions are produced by the wealthy). https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/15963544/climate-change-individual-choices https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/1596354... original paper here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sandworm101 8y ago

In their defense, development of a solar plant is still development. Roads will need to be cut. Vegetation will need to be cut. Some animals will not react well. Climate change is all well and good, but we do need to set aside some land to just be land. The sierra folk may have seen this as the thing edge of a large wedge, effectively a rezoning of the land for a more industrial use. It is too easy to judge such things after the fact. Sierra's point would probably be that we should be re re-purposing disused industrial land for solar farms rather than virgin fields.

llukas 8y ago
This is nothing in comparison for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining for brown coal/lignite.
shereadsthenews 8y ago
This particular project did not require new roads. It is served by county road J1, and I-5. It also was not built on undisturbed land. Prior to the solar plant it was severely degraded range land.
the8472 8y ago
> but we do need to set aside some land to just be land. Not if "just be land" also involves cattle farming.

inamberclad 8y ago

Do you have coordinates? I can't find it on satellite imagery. I remember flying over Harris Ranch at about 5000 feet a few years back. Unpressurized light aircraft. I could smell the cattle from up there.

iso1337 8y ago
Harris ranch (or whatever big cow op is on I-5). (36.3057129, -120.2729291) The solar project is Panoche Valley, I don’t think any satellite pics are new enough to show progress There’s a map here: https://www.panochevalleysolar.com/project-overview/ https://www.panochevalleysolar.com/project-overview/