3 ms·
But still, if we are going to have solar panels somewhere, I'd rather have them in a desert where there is not as much wildlife to disrupt as in, say, a forest
by majewsky 7y ago
But still, if we are going to have solar panels somewhere, I'd rather have them in a desert where there is not as much wildlife to disrupt as in, say, a forest or grassland biome. It's not like we're at risk of running out of deserts, either.
- kragen 7y ago(1) Generally this is not good ecological thinking. Disrupting a robust biome like grassland or rainforest is much more difficult than disrupting a fragile one like desert or tundra, and robust biomes recover much faster if you do manage to disrupt them. I think it happens to be correct in this case because the panels will tend to strengthen the biome by providing shade rather than disrupt it. If you go around disrupting desert biomes on a large scale, you cause desertification, converting the adjacent savanna and forest biomes into semi-arid desert. So even if you don't value desert for itself, that is foolish planning, unless your aim is to harm wildlife and the humans alike. (2) We aren't at risk of running out of children, either, but that doesn't excuse neglecting or sacrificing them.