7 ms·
> Now, though, the problems facing the environment are wildly different–and require more development not less. This is an article filled with unhinged scare wo
by zer8k 3y ago
> Now, though, the problems facing the environment are wildly different–and require more development not less.
This is an article filled with unhinged scare words. The author even tries, albeit implicitly, to suggest that we should build a 14 square mile solar farm on the same land endangered tortoises live. When you start making these arguments you run into the same exact problem the author speaks of later: people were opposed to expanding urban sprawl because it destroyed the land they use for recreation. No one wants to take a visit to the solar farm and camp out next to the windmills. So, whats the solution?
As one commenter suggested the answer is nuclear power. We are so happy to pollute our land further with eyesores like solar farms and wind farms and not a single person is willing to consider nuclear power. Even ignoring the negative aesthetic of this so-called clean technology there's another aspect that isn't discuss and that's the damage to wildlife. People like the author, who has spent several pages justifying this, seem to be completely content with destroying the local fauna if it saves us from the alleged "climate apocalypse" just around the corner. I've been around long enough to remember several supposed "raptures" that were going to happen. It's getting harder to differentiate the two groups.
The same "uninhabited" land they want to build these on can be use to safely place a nuclear power plant that, should anything go wrong, damage mitigation would be trivial.
I am repeatedly impressed at the mental gymnastics used to avoid discussing nuclear power.
- astrange 3y agoThe problem with nuclear power in the US is that it's unbelievably expensive to construct and you will not get the NRC to approve it. Renewables are cheap; he has a consistent theme of supporting them because of this. Also, solar and wind farms don't destroy the environment under them or anything; solar can make land more habitable by adding shade. What it does do is make the land harder to sell, which is a problem if you're a land banker pretending to be a farmer, a common situation in the US. And the Sierra Club is anti-nuclear; they just got Illinois to block it again: https://twitter.com/SierraClubIL/status/1690054514772975624 https://twitter.com/SierraClubIL/status/1690054514772975624
- nvm0n2 3y agoYes, they block nuclear even though it has minimal / no impact on the landscape compared to the alternatives. This is inconsistent with Smith's explanation. Noah Smith publicly advertises himself as being on the left, so of course in these groups he sees the spectre of conservatism. They refuse to build solar farms because they just can't stop conserving things! But there's an alternative hypothesis that also explains the nuclear problem: these are people whose personalities cannot abide tradeoffs of any kind. They are utopian progressives who believe that if a proposal has any downsides at all, then they should protest and block under the assumption that faced with resistance the smart set will come up with a better proposal. Claims that there are no alternatives are rejected on the grounds that capital-P Progress is automatic and easy, so if anyone is stating that you have to choose between birds/tortoises and climate, then they just need to try harder to find a solution that makes everyone happy.
- Tao3300 3y agoYour alternative hypothesis is itself conservatism. Blocking change is to support the endurance of the status quo. They may not think it is by their ideals, but do it enough times and the actions speak.
- nvm0n2 3y agoPerhaps, yes. At some point it becomes an argument over words: is it conservative if you're so radical no proposal is considered good enough, so you default to rejecting everything? Is there even such a thing as radical conservatism or is that a contradiction?
- Tao3300 3y agoI wouldn't say exactly that, rather that a refusal to compromise ultimately results in choosing the status quo, and is therefore an effectively conservative choice. The words all mean the same things, it's the choices that are contradictory.
- taylodl 3y ago
- HDMI_Cable 3y agoThe author above, Noahpinion, supports nuclear power. He isn't avoiding discussing nuclear power because he is opposed to it, but rather to highlight the pertinent issue in the article: that these sorts of organizations block all sorts of clean energy, including nuclear.
- beachy 3y ago> I've been around long enough to remember several supposed "raptures" that were going to happen. What are you referring to? If it's some hysteria affecting the members of an opt-in religious group then that's hardly relevant to the discussion.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zer8k 3y agoYes I am referring to such "opt-in" religious groups. It's not irrelevant because if you swap a few words around you wouldn't be able to tell this type of article from a televangelist. That's bad optics for an otherwise good movement. We should be concerned about the climate. We should do something about it. Nuclear power is nice because we don't have to kill all sorts of fauna and consume large swaths of land. We shouldn't be alarmists. We especially shouldn't be espousing apocalyptic language when it's demonstrably not apocalyptic. If you actually read the article the alarmism would rise to the exact level needed to suggest a second-coming style rapture. But instead of Christ, it's biblical floods and super hot summers...wait they're starting to sound the same. The comparison was honestly to get a rise out of people that can't see when the horseshoe ends begin to touch. It's far harder for people to take articles like this one seriously when it's filled with language that sounds more like a panicked sermon than a measured discussion on possible ways to get rid of dead dinos.
- doctoboggan 3y agoThe company I work for is installing and managing one of these large solar farms in Nevada and from what I’ve seen everyone takes the protection of the tortoises very seriously. I did a site visit a few months ago and had to watch hours of training videos on the tortoises and what to do when they are encountered. There are environmental monitors on site at all times and they even go around hiding fake tortoises to test the staff’s reaction. The panels were also installed in a less dense configuration to as to affect the environment less. They were also installed with variable length feet so the ground would not have to be leveled. I am sure the tortoises would be better off if humans never came around but I have to say they are being treated pretty well in this case.
- chasd00 3y ago> ..had to watch hours of training videos on the tortoises and what to do when they are encountered. There are environmental monitors on site at all times and they even go around hiding fake tortoises to test the staff’s reaction. i'm all for protecting the ecosystem but that's surreal. What's the "tortoise" budget?
- doctoboggan 3y agoThe environmental monitors are not actually employees by us. I think they are affiliated with a local university and are managed through the BLM, though I am sure their salaries are ultimately paid by my company through some fees or permits. I believe there are 2 or 3 of them compared to easily 100+ construction/engineering staff. Honestly in the grand scheme of things I am sure the tortoise budget is a very small fraction of the overall budget but I am just a data engineer and don't have insight into that.
- romusha 3y agoSomebody must be benfitting immensely it these gigantic solar and wind farms are built, such that some people zealously prop them up disregarding the local fauna, flora and well-being of the residents. And it's not talked enough
- alex_lav 3y agoIf you think the wellbeing of local residents is bad with wind power, wait till you hear about climate change...
- unnamed76ri 3y agoAccording to the alarmists, I’m pretty sure the climate was supposed to have killed us all several times over by now.
- voisin 3y agoNot sure if you’ve been watching the news this summer, but tens of thousands of acres have burned, thousands of people uprooted from their homes, the skies filled with thick smoke, and numerous people have died. So perhaps the alarmists weren’t effective enough, but the fact that they were sounding the alarm doesn’t seem ridiculous to me.
- Tao3300 3y agoWere this summer's wildfires caused or worsened by climate change? Please share your sources.
- voisin 3y agoWell, the science shows that this was the hottest June and July in something like 10,000 years, and the oceans are the warmest they’ve ever been. Most of North America is in a drought. Is your answer that unless we can draw a direct causal link with certainty, these things must be treated as totally unrelated?
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago> No one wants to take a visit to the solar farm and camp out next to the windmills. I do! Wind farms in particular are spectacular and preferable to farmland
- AlotOfReading 3y agoThose from California will probably be familiar with the Altamont and Tehachapi pass windfarms, both on major highways east of the SF and LA Metro areas respectively. They're some of the largest onshore wind farms in the world and both are beautiful as you hike or drive nearby. The novar wind farm in Scotland is even better for the avid wind farm hiking enthusiast.
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoYup, exactly what I was thinking of.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jay_kyburz 3y ago>As one commenter suggested the answer is nuclear power. I'm sorry, I just don't trust our governments, or future governments, to manage nuclear. Shit happens, whether it's natural disasters, or human catastrophes like the War in Europe. We need to acknowledge that war, and a steep decline in our ability to function as a civilization are a very real possibility. Climate change itself might bring this about. What would a few years of extreme famine do to our society? I agree with the conservationists on this. The solution is to build solar in the land we have already ruined with our cities, and make do with less power.
- Tao3300 3y ago> make do with less power Good luck with that, internet commentator.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoNuclear is an absolute loser in this country. Forgetting the astronomical price tag it's just not fast enough. If we started building nuclear today the first plant wouldn't be ready until at the absolute soonest 2030. We need clean energy now, that means solar and wind.