• Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    6 months ago

    Chopping down Joshua trees is a bit absurd. I live in the mohave desert, there are PLENTY of barren areas to do it, you almost have to be looking for the ancient Joshua trees to decide to do that. And as far as I know they are protected in most places, especially the California side.

    But I will say the article seems a bit ragebaity. “To power wealthy people’s homes”. Unless they are super isolated somehow, that power is going into the grid, just like every other means of electricity production. The dude that wrote the article will be using it to charge his laptop when it’s done, just like the rest of us.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      yep. and it’s hardly like there are FORESTS of johsua trees, it’s one here, another one over there, a few kms down the road another one… the idea that they’re paving over a forest…

      also, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they can just build around the fuckers, they’re small ass trees to start with.

      Edit:

      there are totally areas chock fulla Joshua Trees. I stand corrected, see links below.

      But still think they can find space for this and other solar all throughout the southwest desert.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      All of the electricity in a power grid is physically identical, but markets make a distinction between the sources by way of purchase agreements and various types of renewable energy credits. If it seems crazy for the locals to complain that they are losing their forest and not even getting the electricity from this new plant, it’s not because they’re mistaken. It’s because we have a crazy system to try and use market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    6 months ago

    Oh no, there destroying 1000! That must be a lot!

    Oh wait, there’s 10 million in existence.

    Thanks, but I think this is a fine trade.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      What about all the sunny land that doesn’t have Joshua trees? Why are we even trying to build power plants so far away from where the electricity is mostly needed?

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        Do you think there are no reasons? Would you accept this if there were, or would you just say the reasons were bad?

            • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              The issue with ground prices is they fail to account for stuff humans really need like clean air, clean water, biodiversity. So if you stripp all these factors in valuation and then start building while at the same time chopping down trees in need of protection. You are kinda rigging the game, or not?

                • Vandals_handle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The land is only cheap when you pretend those externalized environmental costs do not exist. They still have to be paid, usually by the public at large. I think the saying goes; socialize the cost and privatize the gains.

        • Vandals_handle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Build over existing infrastructure. One example is current project to cover water canals with solar. Don’t need to acquire land, reduces evaporation saving water, reduces plant growth in canals lowering maintenance costs.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          To me, good reasons would align with the goals of environmental protection and wealth transfer to the working class. How do Aratina-type projects do so better than a nuclear power plant (or concentrated solar or deep-well geothermal) within or nearby to a population center? If they ever do it’s just incidental. The real reason for the Aratina development is that this was deal that satisfied the various capital interests involved in it (the land owner, “Avantus, a California company that is mostly owned by KKR, the global private equity firm”, and the bourgeois interests served by the county).

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      If people think solar destroys the environment, wait till they find out about coal and natural gas

  • Vytle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t care enough about the subject to actually look into this, but the title reads like astroturfing.

    • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wouldn’t be surprised if the local government did it on purpose to fight the jewish woke green agenda…

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Your post was very clear, lemmy has a reading comprehension problem.

            You clearly mean that’s the reason the local government did it, not that you think they’re right.

    • invertedspear@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, they’re called a tree, but they’re an overgrown cactus. They don’t get very big and don’t have near the carbon capture something like a pine does. But there are plenty of areas of just scrub brush better suited for this project.

  • raldone01@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I am always really annoyed when perfectly flat space in Austria is wasted with solar panels WHEN there are huge flat roofed buildings around.

    I hope they are not also chopping down trees.

  • cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Reads like NIMBY propaganda. “Oh no muh construction dust.” Bitch you live in a desert…

    • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      6 months ago

      Put solar panels in parking lots and on buildings, where the humans live, not in fragile ecosystems. Deserts aren’t bereft of life, they are filled with some of the most resilient and charismatic flora and fauna known. Joshua trees and the Mojave have it bad enough already.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        6 months ago

        Honestly, solar panels above parking lots would rock. Shade for people in the parking lots, and power generation. Yet we don’t do it…

        • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I want the term “parking desert” to take hold in place of parking lot. I hate most aspects of automobiles. The amount land we pave over for storage is just tragic and rude.

          We should build solar farms over our parking deserts to reduce human footprint.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I largely agree. I think we should have car-free city centers (delivery truck and transit only) with parking garages at the edges near transit hubs. But instead of that, we subsidize driving and encourage a car-centric society.

        • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Kaiser, which is a major hmo here in California, has been putting solar panel parking shade in their lots. The community college in my town has it too. I can’t think of any downsides to them other than the installation cost. Everyone likes shade from sun and rain, and free electricity.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      There’s more to NIMBYism than saying “not in my back yard” in opposition to any development for any reason. A position isn’t meaningfully NIMBY unless it is in opposition to an arguably good development for bad reasons. For example, it is NIMBYism to oppose the construction of affordable housing because you don’t want to attract poor minorities to your neighborhood. In this case, a PV solar power plant might arguably be a good thing, but the reasons for opposing it, including the destruction of a rare ecosystem and a specific type of dangerous construction pollution, are more than fair.

    • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      I love the story of when they played at the Barrow lands in Glasgow, I think. I’m paraphrasing

      Bono walks onto the stage and claps really slowly, at 3 second intervals.

      After a bit, he says dramatically “Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies”

      A bloke in the audience shouts “Stop doing it then you cruel cunt”

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      How? What are the differences between the new and old versions of net metering in California that are affecting this situation?

      • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think the new version of net metering pays homeowners less than it did previously, for power that they feed into the grid, disincentivizing rooftop solar.

        • Hello_there@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes. Why put solar on rooftops, where people need it, when the utility can bulldoze the desert and make miles of transmission lines and get paid 10% to do so?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well, at a certain level of generation, adding more isn’t as valuable since the excess needs to be stored to offset the base need. So it makes absolute sense for the compensation to drop as supply goes up.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Solar project to destroy thousands of Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert… So Rich People Can Continue Privileged, Unsustainable Lifestyle