Solar Energy V. Feinstein and the Tortoises

While from its title this post might sound like a review of the next big indie band, it's actually a distillation of the next big issue for solar energy: where it is and isn't acceptable to install.

A group led by California senator Dianne Feinstein and groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council have boggled some of their environmental allies by saying they want to rope off a large chunk of the Mojave Desert to development. The fight is the clearest example yet of a fact some have been slow to realize, namely that the label "environmentalist" can be about as descriptive as calling both Democrats and Republicans politicians.

The money quote for the issue, in the NYTimes, comes from David Myers, head of the Wildlife Conservancy: "How can you say you're going to blade off thousands of acres of earth to preserve the Earth?" he asks.

Myers' sort of environmentalists, who have been around since before climate change was a big issue -- you might call them nature lovers or, less politely, tree huggers -- are concerned about the desert's scenic vistas, never yet marred by anything taller than a railroad track, and wildlife, most notably a population of endangered tortoises.

Meanwhile, the opposition is the new environmentalist, who thinks climate change is not just a priority, but the priority. To be fair, this new, and likely larger group, never set out to step on the toes of their older brethren; they just never thought to assign much value to a stretch of land that was never developed mainly because it was considered economically worthless.

The problem is that current plans for developing solar power almost all involve putting it on marginal lands that have so far been preserved from intrusion. And no matter what "it" is, whether solar thermal, photovoltaics or something else, it will eventually occupy millions of acres.

This isn't the first time the debate has come up. Plans for the development of 550 megawatts of solar power in California by Optisolar, rights to which are now owned by First Solar, had to provide living spaces for animals beneath.

Unfortunately, Feinstein and her allies couldn't have ratcheted up the volume at a worse time. It would have been better to start working on these issues several years ago, before plans were running at full tilt. Until now, opposition to putting plants in certain places has been more muted (with the exception of Cape Cod NIMBYism).

Striking out with new demands now will almost certainly cause some messes in the startups that have long planned to develop the Mojave, with one source telling the Los Angeles Times, "We spent a lot of time researching the desert, and consulting with the BLM to make sure we didn't apply on top of an area of critical environmental concern, or area with other issues. . . . Now, there's uncertainty on whether these projects will go ahead."

It should be interesting to see how this debate plays out. Chances are good Feinstein will win some concessions in this round; in fact, she might even be right, as the Mojave land was donated to the Federal government less than 20 years ago with the expectation it would remain undeveloped. Government shouldn't be in the habit of breaking its promises.

But in the long run, this issue may only contribute to traditional environmentalists being fully eclipsed. Just as famous naturalist John Muir saw one of his favorite wilderness areas turned into a giant lake, and other parts of California overrun with urban sprawl, today's issues will weigh more heavily in most people's hearts than worries about tomorrow's vistas.