America is on the verge of a renewable energy gold rush. Hundreds of applications for wind and solar projects have been filed on public lands. I think this is long overdue. We need sustainable energy to help us reduce global warming pollution, and we need it fast. But if we don’t handle this boom carefully, unspoiled wildlands will get trammeled in its wake. Right now, we have an opportunity to start the clean energy era off right.
It begins with agreeing which sensitive areas should remain undeveloped. Wind and solar power are pollution free, but they are not impact free. They leave an industrial footprint on the land, and some pristine places would be forever altered by their presence.
That’s why my friends at the NRDC got together with Google Earth and started mapping out public lands where renewable development is not appropriate. Some of the spots colored in on the map are obvious–national parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments where energy development is already prohibited by law or federal policy.
But the map also illustrates places where development should be avoided, even if it isn’t illegal. These include the hundreds of state parks that visitors rely on for hiking and other recreation. They also include proposed wilderness areas being considered by Congress, such as the 9.5 million acres of stunning scenery in Southern Utah that I hope gains protection through America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act.
The remarkable thing is that even when you set these areas aside, there is plenty of land to develop solar and wind projects. The state of California recently did a similar mapping process and found that when it removed all the environmentally sensitive lands, California still has renewable potential of about 500,000 MW–that’s greater than the state’s peak demand.
But we can’t begin the new energy future by only saying where we can’t build renewable projects. We also have to agree on where we can. The lands best suited to wind farms and solar plants are those that have already been disturbed. Up and down the Rockies, there are hundreds of oil and gas fields that are now defunct. In my home state of California, there are thousands of acres of old farms that went bust. And now more than ever, there are private lands that have been carved up for subdivisions that never got built.
These already distressed lands may not satisfy all renewable developers. But hopefully, with so much public land available, they will make reasonable compromises–like not building in a bighorn sheep migration path when they can gain access to other lands instead.
I see two persuasive reasons why the environmental community and the renewable sector can work in unison. The first is credibility. People support renewable projects because they think they are green, and that includes sustainable land use. The second is urgency. Our nation needs to begin the transition away from dirty fossil fuels now in order to stave off the worst impacts of global warming. Controversies and lawsuits over siting will only delay the process.
We spent the last eight years locked in a battle with an administration that sparked rampant oil and gas drilling on our lands. Those days are over. Bush is gone, and Americans recognize the need for clean energy. We have a fresh start, and we have the chance to get the balance between generating sustainable power and caring for our lands right from beginning.
April 7th, 2009 - 10:23 pm
After reading Paul Foy’s article of Feb. 4, “Utah Land Avoids Oil Industry” & ‘Environmental News’ – “Bush-Era…..Canceled” sent e-mail to Secretary Ken Salazar, DOI, with plea for his most serious consideration re: slated auction of parcels by BLM on 3/24 in Redrock Country.
Believe this would be a spiritual loss for the sould of this Great Nation. I have never felt more in touch with a Power that’s greater than all of us, as when I visited Redrock Country; we must persevere to protect this precious land for our children & their children for generations to come. Failure is NOT an option.
April 7th, 2009 - 10:33 pm
p.s. please make correction & change to “soul” of this Great Nation…….. may have been a subconscious slip because we have ’sold’ out & lost forever too many of our most precious of resources for short term gain. Here’s to a brighter future & the promise of brilliant tomorrows….
April 14th, 2009 - 6:42 am
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP – THE ART OF KILLING QUIETLY
The population control agenda is presented to the public as a universal concern for planetary resources and environmental pollution, and to a lesser degree, socio-economic deprivation, women’s rights, and reproductive health. Whatever the truth of these arguments, the point is that population ‘control’ is coercive. The policy papers on population control contain objectives that are so extreme that coercion would certainly be needed to meet them. The 1972 benchmark environmentalist publication, The Limits To Growth, predicted planetary meltdown by 2050 unless radical limits to population growth were imposed. In 1974, this was translated into hard U.S. national security policy by National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger. His lengthy National Security Study Memorandum 200 laid out the aims, timescale, and methods of U.S. foreign policy for limiting the population growth of ‘lesser developed countries’. Measures were to be taken to keep the world’s population growing beyond 8 billion, meaning 500 million fewer people by year 2000 and 3 billion fewer by 2050. However, many suspect that this is nowhere near the real target of the elite and their Malthusian collaborators, which is to cut the world’s current population in half. The American population control think tank, Negative Population Growth Inc., recommended in 1992 that the population of the U.S. should be 125-150 million, requiring a 50% cut from its current level. In 1995, the same think-tank published a study recommending an 80% reduction in global population.
In NSSM 200, Henry Kissinger stated that no single approach would ’solve’ the population problem. Multiple and seemingly unconnected approaches are also less likely to attract attention.
April 18th, 2009 - 1:03 pm
I wrote an award winning short film about global warming. The comedic punch
line shows that we don’t need their oil anymore.Runs about seven minutes.
Needs a globally concerned producer with a sense of humor.
April 18th, 2009 - 9:22 pm
Saw you at Duke. Congratulations Dr. Redford!
Standing Ovations!! You deserve nothing but the best!
April 18th, 2009 - 10:07 pm
They need to stop coming. we need to stop burning coal. Who can I talk to? I am just one person who sits in my favorite park in Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado and watches and wonders WHEN will the coal trains stop coming through our county. I know now how harmful coal burning is to our ozone and I feel the need to do something. Night and day they come empty and they go back to Denver loaded with dozens and dozens of cars of coal. I don’t even want to think about how many of these trains come thru in a week. It has to be hundreds. Who can I talk to?
April 21st, 2009 - 5:20 pm
T McKinney mentions the concept of controlled population growth as if it were one to be ignored, however, anyone with a modicum of education and experience realizes that there are limits to growth in any closed system. Unfortunately, many appear to not recognize the planet ‘earth’ to be a closed system – this may be because the boundaries are frequently difficult to recognize; furthermore, there are many distractions which confuse issues including concerns such as responsible behavior on a personal versus group level. We all recognize that we frequently get to observe examples of resource depletion, however, (and particularly in America) we discount the potential importance of these observations because (a) we have seen such problems before, but know that similar resources are likely to be available elsewhere, (b) we have seen that a process which depends upon a finite resource may appear to have overcome that particular limitation because a substitute resource has/may become available, and (c) many other examples which I will not bother to discuss further at this point. The point which is that resources are limited; resources have a cost; when a resource is permanently depleted, not only does the monetary value of that resource become priceless but any process which is solely dependent on that resource may/will fail or become severely altered/die. This, simply put, is why population control is such an important consideration for survival of the human species. Of course, if you happen to have unlimited resources (because, as a privileged individual such as a CEO of the largess of the United States taxpayer or whatever else facilitates your power and wealth), you may be one of the survivors and, thus, may conclude – so what! However, such an eventuality is not particularly pleasant to anticipate. At points is the past, clamitious natural events have occurred and are postulated to have facilitated the demise of the dinosaurs and related species; however, man-made behaviors have facilitated the demises of a multitude of so-called lesser species. Without belaboring the point, population control will not necessarily insure human species survival; however, our continued, unnecessary overpopulation will certainly speed-up resource depletion. Of course, an optimist may speculate that those resources which are currently thought to be essential, can/may be substituted by others in the future; such thoughts may even provide assurance to the ‘faithful’ who appear to have no concern regarding the health of planet ‘earth’..
April 27th, 2009 - 1:29 pm
“…overpopulation will certainly speed-up resource depletion.”
A brief response to Wm Wilson’s rebuttal response,,,,
Resources are only limited by a few invisible “monetary elitists”. One case in-point was Nikola Tesla who offered free electricity to the world. But J. P. Morgan removed funding after his “boss” told him to stop because an electric meter couldn’t be installed.
Mr. Lear developed a steam powered engine which he installed in a Rolls-Royce and in a school bus and ran them continually 24/7 on his estates track. They continued to run even after the chassis fell apart. Shortly thereafter he received a visit in his work shop office from a few men in the auto industry. After meeting, he came out red faced and told his workers they were out of business.
These intelligent men, as well as others, were God’s gift to the world.
I would submit that controlling individuals deplete the earth’s resources.
May 6th, 2009 - 4:33 am
There is actually more usable, direct geothermal, energy under the Cascaids volcanos than there are in all the fossle fuels on the planet, combined.
Drill a hole in The Dalles, pump water in it, and figure out how to build a turbine that can run on that steam quality. Then, be insulted, by the legions of people that don’t think your doing the best you can to save the world, free of charge.