2 ms·

I’m surprised people are up in arms about this here. First, there has been huge protests about the selling, er “leasing”, of BLM land to millionaires. Do they e

I’m surprised people are up in arms about this here. First, there has been huge protests about the selling, er “leasing”, of BLM land to millionaires. Do they even realize what was happening here? The headline would be better written as “some rich guy no longer gets to skip normal environmental procedures for permanently occupying public land”. Public land should remain that way, forever. Stop selling our children’s future for profit, no matter the cause.

nozzlegear 1y ago
> Stop selling our children’s future for profit, no matter the cause. This sounds quite ironic when juxtaposed with the fact that the cause in question is solar power.
- exabrial 1y ago
  So... fricken... what...? "XYZ" [solar] at the cost of what? Allowing one rich guy to permanently occupy a section of public land? Without ever compensating the public for the immense wealth he'd extract from a public resource? This is basically giving the land to him permanently without ever paying for the billions the land is worth? If were a 99.999% revshare (meaning he keeps 0.001%) and a giant fund for the inevitable environmental cleanup were established I might think differently, but lets not play imagination here. The previous generations destroyed public lands with dumping, dams, mines, etc in the name of progress or whatever, and the people that extracted the wealth packed their things and left the public with the mess to clean up. These procedures were established to sort of roadblock that, but even then it's still wrong. It's time to learn from the past. Decimating and absolutely destroying public land is something that shouldn't be on the table by alleged environmentalists.
  - tempestn 1y ago
    In what way will the solar array destroy the land? Do you feel it's superior to destroy ecosystems with global warming, vs devoting land to clean energy? If so, why, and if not, why do you see the trade-off differently?

nozzlegear 1y ago

> Stop selling our children’s future for profit, no matter the cause. This sounds quite ironic when juxtaposed with the fact that the cause in question is solar power.

exabrial 1y ago
So... fricken... what...? "XYZ" [solar] at the cost of what? Allowing one rich guy to permanently occupy a section of public land? Without ever compensating the public for the immense wealth he'd extract from a public resource? This is basically giving the land to him permanently without ever paying for the billions the land is worth? If were a 99.999% revshare (meaning he keeps 0.001%) and a giant fund for the inevitable environmental cleanup were established I might think differently, but lets not play imagination here. The previous generations destroyed public lands with dumping, dams, mines, etc in the name of progress or whatever, and the people that extracted the wealth packed their things and left the public with the mess to clean up. These procedures were established to sort of roadblock that, but even then it's still wrong. It's time to learn from the past. Decimating and absolutely destroying public land is something that shouldn't be on the table by alleged environmentalists.
- tempestn 1y ago
  In what way will the solar array destroy the land? Do you feel it's superior to destroy ecosystems with global warming, vs devoting land to clean energy? If so, why, and if not, why do you see the trade-off differently?