It was bound to happen eventually. After all, it’s easy to understand why wildlife conservation activists have been quietly worrying about the impact that building new renewable energy infrastructure could have on animal habitats. Meanwhile, proponents of renewable energy feel that if we don’t get solar panels, wind turbines, power lines and other means of clean, green energy installed quickly, all of us – including the animals conservationists are trying to protect – will be much worse off.
It’s come down to environmentalist versus environmentalist, with each group passionately defending and advocating for their respective causes. The question now is, can they work together to ensure that wildlife is protected, but we don’t dally too much in moving forward on renewable energy?
The New York Times has the details:
The conflict began playing out almost a decade ago in places like Cape Cod, Mass., where a plan to place 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound has pitted energy-conscious environmentalists against local residents who fear harm to aquatic life and the view.
It has spread west to Mojave-area locales like flatland near the Ivanpah Valley, 130 miles northeast of here, where a proposal to install three clusters of 50,000 solar mirrors has prompted anxiety over the fate of endangered tortoises.
Terry Frewin, a local Sierra Club representative, said he had tough questions for state regulators. “Deserts don’t need to be sacrificed so that people in L.A. can keep heating their swimming pools,” Mr. Frewin said.
In California, many of these conservationists have joined an advisory group to help state regulators determine where renewable energy zones should be created. California is in a particular hurry to find renewable energy sites since a 2006 law requires utilities to produce 20 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
That will mean rapid construction of power plants and power lines, which has environmentalists understandably worried about preserving the habitats of endangered species and the state’s beautiful natural lands.
The good news is, it’s likely that the two groups will come together. The trade-offs are difficult and both sides will be forced to make concessions they’re not happy with – but in the end, it will be worthwhile.
Link [The New York Times]
