Nov 6, 2022·edited Nov 6, 2022Liked by Tony Povilitis
For now I think we need to put solar panels on as many buildings as possible. We need our farmland and we also need land for wildlife. Most plants and animals can't live under solar panels.
Yes, and at the same time cut energy consumption and stabilize population. There are ways to fight climate change without eliminating wildlife habitat, natural ecosystems, and farmland. And ways to do it fairly. People need to insist on this and get buy in from environmental organizations.
Comment emailed to me from Gail Clark (she ok'd posting it here):
Well done, Tony. My concern is that the topic is vast and, by many standards, complicated.
The general public including “environmentalists” seem to refuse (or are unable) to consider the drawbacks of full speed head-on “green energy”. And it’s confusing. IMO it’s reckless. Too, trading off farmland for solar (or wind)…as the population increases? I understand they can’t be built in cities which is obvious. Which brings us to one of your suggestions - roadways, rooftops, ALL new development, etc. I feel we may be on a collision course if we don’t soon apply common sense to this race to “save the planet”. And, of course, scaling down would be the best single thing we could do right now, but considering the current political climate, no politician or government is going to touch that subject.
It’s gonna be quite a ride!
My reply:
Thanks, Gail, for your feedback!
Indeed, no political leader or government at this time would call for scaling down consumption of natural resources and population in order to fight climate change and, more broadly, to save the natural environmental from further devastation by overgrowth. Either they are blinded by the false promise of technological salvation and fanciful "sustainable development," or they actually understand limits to growth and fear to address the matter.
I say "at this time" because through an honest and well-circulated national conversation about the negative impacts of overgrowth, some brave and insightful leaders could potentially build public support for scaling down — as such would mean a better, higher quality, and more secure future for people and their children.
Ironically, right now there is government action being taken to, in fact, scale down. But it has nothing to do with the environment, and is considered a prerequisite for even more (unsustainable) economic growth. I'm referring to temporarily raising interest rates to fight inflation by cooling the economy. To the extent that the tactic fails, it may further erode public confidence in government's ability to solve problems.
Worse still, and directly related to the environmental issues we're discussing, would be failure of government investment and political promotion to shift to renewable energy without triggering a huge, enduring energy crisis resulting from a shortfall of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, such circumstances would make it all the more difficult, if not impossible, to inspire people to scale down for their well-being and for Earth's.
I wish I had the answer as to how we can turn society around. Maybe you, or I, or someone like us could enter politics and run a #LivingEarthPolicy campaign. It would be a wild ride!
I've done biological surveys for desert tortoises in areas that were then scraped bare for construction of solar facilities, at least one of which (Ivanpah - Mojave Desert)was a massive failure and stands unused. While doing this survey the crew often discussed alternatives, which included, along with the freeway median strips and building rooftops you mention, abandoned landfills, wastelands created by mining and other extractive industries, and overgrazed and overused agricultural lands that are beyond salvation. There is no excuse for destroying wildlife habitat for "green" energy projects when better alternatives exist. Eric Holle
For now I think we need to put solar panels on as many buildings as possible. We need our farmland and we also need land for wildlife. Most plants and animals can't live under solar panels.
Yes, and at the same time cut energy consumption and stabilize population. There are ways to fight climate change without eliminating wildlife habitat, natural ecosystems, and farmland. And ways to do it fairly. People need to insist on this and get buy in from environmental organizations.
Comment emailed to me from Gail Clark (she ok'd posting it here):
Well done, Tony. My concern is that the topic is vast and, by many standards, complicated.
The general public including “environmentalists” seem to refuse (or are unable) to consider the drawbacks of full speed head-on “green energy”. And it’s confusing. IMO it’s reckless. Too, trading off farmland for solar (or wind)…as the population increases? I understand they can’t be built in cities which is obvious. Which brings us to one of your suggestions - roadways, rooftops, ALL new development, etc. I feel we may be on a collision course if we don’t soon apply common sense to this race to “save the planet”. And, of course, scaling down would be the best single thing we could do right now, but considering the current political climate, no politician or government is going to touch that subject.
It’s gonna be quite a ride!
My reply:
Thanks, Gail, for your feedback!
Indeed, no political leader or government at this time would call for scaling down consumption of natural resources and population in order to fight climate change and, more broadly, to save the natural environmental from further devastation by overgrowth. Either they are blinded by the false promise of technological salvation and fanciful "sustainable development," or they actually understand limits to growth and fear to address the matter.
I say "at this time" because through an honest and well-circulated national conversation about the negative impacts of overgrowth, some brave and insightful leaders could potentially build public support for scaling down — as such would mean a better, higher quality, and more secure future for people and their children.
Ironically, right now there is government action being taken to, in fact, scale down. But it has nothing to do with the environment, and is considered a prerequisite for even more (unsustainable) economic growth. I'm referring to temporarily raising interest rates to fight inflation by cooling the economy. To the extent that the tactic fails, it may further erode public confidence in government's ability to solve problems.
Worse still, and directly related to the environmental issues we're discussing, would be failure of government investment and political promotion to shift to renewable energy without triggering a huge, enduring energy crisis resulting from a shortfall of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, such circumstances would make it all the more difficult, if not impossible, to inspire people to scale down for their well-being and for Earth's.
I wish I had the answer as to how we can turn society around. Maybe you, or I, or someone like us could enter politics and run a #LivingEarthPolicy campaign. It would be a wild ride!
Tony
I've done biological surveys for desert tortoises in areas that were then scraped bare for construction of solar facilities, at least one of which (Ivanpah - Mojave Desert)was a massive failure and stands unused. While doing this survey the crew often discussed alternatives, which included, along with the freeway median strips and building rooftops you mention, abandoned landfills, wastelands created by mining and other extractive industries, and overgrazed and overused agricultural lands that are beyond salvation. There is no excuse for destroying wildlife habitat for "green" energy projects when better alternatives exist. Eric Holle