The timing no doubt was coincidence, but while Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was celebrating the country's largest solar project in California, two U.S. senators were introducing legislation to protect desert landscapes in the state.
The irony wasn't lost on the National Parks Conservation Association, which has questioned the location of the solar farm.
“There is a lot of celebrating today in the California desert. Senator Feinstein released the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act and Sally Jewell flipped the on-switch at Desert Sunlight Solar plant. The confluence of these events highlights the important work that remains to be done in the California desert," said David Lamfrom, NPCA's California Desert associate director. "That includes permanently protecting some of the most beautiful and vibrant lands in America and the continued need to do a better job of siting renewable energy away from species-rich lands. Considering how important our national parks and protected lands are to our desert economy, finding this balance now is fundamental.”
Earlier Monday, the Interior secretary and the director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze joined California state and industry leaders to “flip the switch” on the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm. Now operating at full capacity, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is providing 550 megawatts of electricity to the grid, enough energy to power 160,000 average homes. The facility is estimated to displace 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year – the equivalent to taking 60,000 cars off the road.
“Solar projects like Desert Sunlight are helping to create American jobs, develop domestic renewable energy and cut carbon pollution,” said Secretary Jewell. “I applaud the project proponents for their vision and entrepreneurial spirit to build this solar project and commend Governor Brown for implementing policies that take action on climate change and help move our nation toward a renewable energy future.”
Desert Sunlight is the sixth solar project approved on public lands that is now operational. Together with wind, solar and geothermal, the renewable energy projects built on public lands since 2009 are producing over 2,200 megawatts of power, or enough to power almost 700,000 average homes. An additional 2,500 megawatts is currently under construction, including eight solar projects in California and Nevada.
Desert Sunlight is located on about 4,100 acres managed by the BLM in Riverside County, about 70 miles east of Palm Springs and six miles north of the rural community of Desert Center. The facility uses more than eight million First Solar photovoltaic modules to generate power with no air emissions, no waste production and no water use. The thin film technology has the smallest carbon footprint of any photovoltaic technology. The renewable energy is sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison under long-term contracts.
As part of the Interior Department’s commitment to responsible development of renewable energy, the Desert Sunlight project underwent extensive environmental review and mitigation. The BLM worked in close coordination with Desert Sunlight, the National Park Service and other stakeholders to significantly reduce the proposed project’s total footprint down from the proposed 19,000 acres. The BLM is requiring that Desert Sunlight provide funding for acquisition and enhancement of more than 7,500 acres of suitable habitat for desert tortoise and other sensitive wildlife species to help mitigate the project’s potential impacts.
Also on Monday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both California Democrats, introduced legislation that would expand by 75,000 acres the Mojave National Preserve and Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks.
“This piece of legislation is the final chapter in a long effort to preserve one of the most magnificent landscapes in the United States,” Sen. Feinstein said. “We must ensure that critical parts of the California desert—with its mountain vistas, bighorn sheep, mule deer, desert tortoises, Joshua trees, Native American petroglyphs and much more—will be protected for all time.”
Comments
Y'just made more.
But then again, perhaps when it's deliberate, it's not a mistake.
Please point out for us where the author "admits" his article is conjecture.
Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.
As countries get richer, their natality rate goes down. So, we can look forward to India and China to become rich for their population growth to decrease. It may be too late by then...
The thing is, Lee, those in the extreme right wing have this quaint notion that Americans are not selfish enough yet.
Extreme Right? That's very funny. Very, very funny to be accurate. Would you please venture where JFK would be in the spectrum today? I'd say he'd be to the right of most anybody in the Republican body of leadership that we have today. You have been taken over by a bunch of subversives is what comes to mind but please answer the question (just for kicks). Where would JFK be? We're all saps in our enemy's minds today (we are). Yep, time to go on an extended adventure and deal with real reality. It is interesting that the big benefactor to all that is green today never ventures further than the ruff of a golf course?
"China has announced its intent to peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, and to strive to peak earlier. The announcement did not specify at what level China’s emissions would peak, though multiple scenarios that peak around 2030 show peak emissions around 10 billion metric tons per year."
"Scenarios that show China peaking in 2030 assume near-term action by China. For instance, the MIT scenario assumes a carbon tax will take effect in 2015."
When you talk of "multiple scenarios" and "assume things" you talk of conjecture. Noone knows how high the emissions will go before 2030 nor whether China will follow through thereafter. Not a mistake, absolute fact.
Funny how those on the left think that someone that wants to create and keep their wealth is selfish or greedy but those that want to take it away are virtuous.
China's economy is declining and Obamas agreement only asks to cap its emissions by 2030. So China continues on as normal while we self impose restrictions that hurt our economy. Only an America hating delusional lefty could think this was a good deal. China is laughing at us and sadly like the rest of the world...
In the Tragedy of the Commons, we are reminded that voluntarism selects for its own failure. The person who volunteers responsibility is soon done in by everyone who eschews it. In recent years, a pile of academic literature has protested this concept: President Obama is obviously in that camp. How would JFK have responded? Or Richard Nixon? Certainly, not by volunteering in hopes that the world would grow to "like us." After all, they had witnessed World War II. Every time Britain bent, Hitler went for more. "While England Slept," as JFK put it. In that world view, China will go for more--go for broke. Obama is simply betting that they won't. Obama is a child of guilt. He may be president, but he can no more escape his experinces than we can. He believes the United States is the problem.
I still believe in the lessons of history. Unquestionably, the United States has led the world in pollution, but it has also led the world in solving the problem. In plastics alone, we are now less than one percent of emissions. The plastics collecting in the oceans are now mostly from Asia and other countries trying to "catch up." JFK likely would agree we owe the world "something," but not a guilt trip, as it were. If China benefits by pirating our technology, why can't they benefit by stealing our pollution technology? Because they don't care to believe in the rights of the individual. If millions die from pollution, so be it.
EC stumbles over that from time to time, but that is what he is driving at. Why blame wealth? Why blame success? It has made us who we are. And the basis of that is a firm belief in the individual. Few other countries in the world come close.
If president, how would I have handled the agreement with China? I would have kicked them in the butt. Steal our pollution technology while you're stealing our inventions, and by the way, feel free to establish more national parks. And if you want to sell us your products, take a reasonable amount of ours in return--not just scrap metal, cardboard, and shipping containers. But then, I am still a firm believer in the Tragedy of the Commons. He who volunteers gets run over by those taking advantage. It's like giving everyone in class an A. The next semester your class is filled with students, but none of them wants to learn a thing.