Wednesday, October 6, 2010

I don’t think I have ever come across a more hypocritical blog post- and I’ve read some real doozies in my time.

Here is the blog post as written, I will give the link and copyright information below:
BEGIN COPYRIGHTED BLOG PROPAGANDA BELOW--------------------------------------
Hard choices and tradeoffs- posted July 28th, 2010

Is there any word more laden with catch phrases than “change?”  We are told it is inevitable. That it is necessary. That it is hard. All this smacks of cliché, of course—but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

We are now seeing change manifested on the global scale:  the planet’s climate is changing, driven by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This change is inflicting severe stresses on human communities and natural ecosystems; addressing it will demand a tremendous commitment in both political will and economic resources.

That will require changes in human behavior. I’m not just talking about the way we consume or drive – I’m also talking about the way we view conservation, about balancing environmental goals that could well conflict with one another.

I am now experiencing the stresses associated with change on a professional level.  I’ve spent my entire career – more than 30 years – as an NRDC attorney whose passion is protecting America’s public lands.  My mission was straightforward:  to preserve our forests and rangelands, wilderness areas, wetlands, free-flowing rivers and beaches from destructive activities such as coal mining, oil and gas drilling, road construction and commercial development.  The work was gratifying.  My colleagues and I had clear goals, and we pursued them relentlessly. We had some setbacks, but we also had many victories.   

But our changing climate is changing everything, including conservation goals. We no longer have the luxury of picking between the obvious good and unmitigated evil. We are faced with hard choices, and those choices entail trade-offs.  Our challenge today is to make the choices that provide the greatest environmental benefit and result in the least possible environmental impact.

It is increasingly clear that we must greatly reduce the burning of fossil fuels if we are to ameliorate the effects of climate change and avoid associated catastrophes such as the Deepwater Horizon oil blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico.  Energy conservation must be at the vanguard of this strategy – more efficient cars, appliances, factories and lighting fixtures.  But energy conservation alone won’t get us through the bottleneck.  If we are to make this transition and still maintain a technologically advanced and civil society, we have to develop an alternative energy infrastructure. This will involve multiple approaches.  We can’t rely on a single one; we need a diverse portfolio.

Certainly, small-scale local generation – projects that involve solar photovoltaic panels and thermal collectors on city rooftops – will be part of the solution. But we also need large projects. And in the case of utility-scale solar and wind projects, they will be very large indeed, involving thousands of acres. There can be no real multiple-use scenarios for such sites. Certain types of agriculture – even oil or gas extraction – can include wildlife habitat if properly planned. This generally is not the case for utility-scale solar projects.  The land typically must be graded, and the solar arrays packed closely together.  Electricity generation is the sole benefit of such projects.  Wherever they are located, they will be industrial zones – without, to be sure, any accompanying air pollution.  There will be other major land-use impacts resulting from the transmission lines that link these projects with the cities where the electricity is needed.

It is therefore essential that we site these projects with the greatest possible care.  And clearly, some areas are better than others.  As an example, a good choice for large solar arrays may be retired agricultural lands of the western San Joaquin Valley. Some of these lands are tainted with salt and selenium, and are no longer suitable for crop production.  Their potential for wildlife habitat is marginal at best. Lands already exploited for fossil fuels are also good candidates for alternative energy projects.  

Some sites, however, must be sacrosanct – off-limits to energy development under any circumstances.  These include our national parks and reserves, wilderness areas and roadless areas, and unique and sensitive wildlife areas.  We must also establish and protect corridors that link these priceless national treasures to maintain their ecological resilience and stability.  We have done our utmost to protect our public lands from helter-skelter fossil fuel development, and we have to do the same to ensure they are protected from unwise renewable energy schemes.

But we must also move ahead with ambitious renewable energy projects as well as energy conservation, energy efficiency and other measures.  We face many difficult decisions, but we will have to pick among them as wisely as we can. There is no reasonable alternative.  As the planet changes, we must change with it.  The traditional conventions – and those include some traditional conventions of the conservation community – must yield to the new realities.”
-------END OF QUOTED BLOG MATERIAL------- Continue to the regular scheduled blog.

Here is the link where you can see this in the vernacular as well as other “insightful” writings.

The above propaganda is copyright 2010 by Johanna Wald and the NRDC blog.

Remember, this is from one of the people that this blogger feels is most responsible for
Ivanpah SEGS and the other large energy boondoggles that are about to be, or have
been approved for the Mojave desert and other wild places. A note to future book writers
and environmental historians, your book definitely should center upon this individual’s
contributions to the train wreck that is about to occur.

Let the raping and pillaging of the pristine desert areas begin!

Now go enjoy the rest of your day.


An after thought, what word do you not see anywhere in the above blog from Ms. Wald?

I’ll give you a hint, it starts with the letter “D”.

Could this be a damning omission?

Perhaps it has never occurred to Ms. Wald and others like her, that deserts are even worthy of protection?