And they’ll cook up a story about how the loss of these species will cascade into a tragic disaster. The same story that a handful of conservationists trot out every time anyone tries to do anything except build on an existing dirt lot.
The fact is there are ~9 million species of Eukaryotes on Earth. ~5 billion have already gone extinct, long before humans were running around. And life went on just fine following a million prior species of desert beetle, rare plant, and tortoise dying out.
If an organism is so rare and limited in environmental tolerance and geography that a solar farm threatens its existence, it’s an evolutionary dead end anyway.
Keep a founder population somewhere if possible, put a collection in a -80 freezer, do a few lanes of illumina sequencing on them and move on.
It’s terrible, and I’m terrible for saying it, but it’s also more practical than thinking that biodiversity has to or can be held constant from the time of Darwin until eternity.
I know the arguments against what I’m saying, being a biologist for 15 years. It is what it is, and no I’m not advocating for wanton extinction.
There is a big difference between nature selecting a species for extinction and humans artificially destroying a habitat required for that life.
If you think that human comfort is more important than the turtles and beetles, then be honest about your willingness to exterminate other species. I’m not here to make a statement about the ethics of that one way or the other, but framing the argument here as a natural process is disingenuous.
I think the real question is how do you feel about the intellectually honest framing of your assertion here, which would be something like “I think it is acceptable for us to exterminate other species so that we can continue to live our current lifestyles unimpeded, while potentially making progress towards repairing the existing damage we have done to the climate.”
I’ve been involved in the establishment of several large collections for the long-term preservation of biodiversity. I’ve published on the advantages.
How do I feel about that framing?
It’s fair, and the focus should be on mitigating loss. Beyond never building anything anywhere I don’t see an alternative since the discussion at hand is about sand dunes and that’s still considered problematic.
In these contexts, what we do to the planet is relatively insignificant. So long as we aren’t jettisoning carbon and organic material into the sun and energy is added to the system from space, life on earth will always be around.
Is there though? Humans are part of nature. What’s the difference between human solar farms killing them all and a snake eating them all?
I don’t think we should just go around extincting things, but humans are part of nature’s cycle and not really that much more important than the 5 billion other reasons why other species went extinct.
When those came up a glance at Google maps revealed green golf courses in the desert next to these solar farms that were of equal size, and vast expanses of empty desert surrounding them.
I'm generally in favor of rooftop solar as it has lots of benefits from being distributed and minimizing transmission. Deserts aren't actually that great for solar PV, but this is still astroturfed FUD.
My town has a large popular off highway vehicle park open for at least 50 years. It's probably less than 0.1% of the surrounding area that basically gets zero use.
They now want to close down this off-road park, to preserve the land for future use. They're finding rare special lizards there. A rare butterfly. Who knows. People are starting to think they import these things and then "find" them and use it as an excuse to close the place down.
Thousands of people have enjoyed this off-road park on their dirt bikes for decades. But now leftists want to preserve it for future generations, damn the current ones. As if the other 99.9% of dirt hills around the off-road park aren't enough.
We can’t have solar because it shades the desert. We can’t have wind power because it makes noise and strikes birds. We can’t have hydro power because it creates a floodplain. We can’t have nuclear power because burying the waste under a mountain is bad.
Now, I recognize that it’s not all the same person or group making all of these arguments. Still, it’s pretty frustrating because it seems like we have no solutions. We’re speeding down the road toward a cliff and any attempt to steer or apply the brakes is getting blocked.
Your point goes overlooked too often! We're destroying all ecosystems under the status quo.
We will still be giving money to people/corps rich enough to own a lot of rooftop, but regular folks can benefit more. It should be easier to cool them down when overheated, they could help with blistering heat in parking lots etc.
