it is fine to criticize bush for his hypocrisy at citing environmental laws as a reason not to employ solar smack dab in endangered species habitat – it is fine because he’s green-lighting the usurpation of those same laws to rubber-stamp oil & gas leasing on public lands. but the regulations are not bad — in fact, i’d posit that bush was citing them with solar to frame them as bad – something he and the republicans have been trying to do for years.

This is to say nothing of the fact that legitimate renewable outfits don’t look to lease public lands – if you’re investing in an alternative energy utility that is speculating to lease on public lands — PULL YOUR INVESTMENT ! The players that know what they’re doing know about NEPA, they know about the ESA (which WILL become a problem with leasing public lands in the West when sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, etc. get listed), they know about the Antiquities Act, and any number of other laws and they know that trying to fight these things is money in the toilet – it’s more secure an investment for stockholders to lease private lands – private lands enjoy private property rights less complicated by regulation than public lands – and private lands enjoy more wealth kept in the communities as locals get the money from leasing – this is an easier sell for investors who want to convince local governments to support their development.

Look – Bush isn’t doing this for the right reasons – but by doing it, he’s got the left all up in arms about what the radical right has been trying to destroy for decades (think Sagebrush Rebellion) – he’s got progressives thinking environmental laws are bad – that it’s too much red tape. These environmental laws (especially NEPA) are what give the public oversight (and by extension/in addition ~ judicial oversight) over developments on our public lands that do potential harm to the values that we care about – we need those activists on the ground who know what’s going on with their local landscapes to have that leverage if we want to maintain wild places and wildlife – especially in a warming world.

I wrote something over here about how global warming is being spun by Bush with regard to wildlife management.

Global warming prompts doubt about wildlife conservation in the West

They know they’ve lost the battle over whether global warming exists – now they’re moving to frame it such that they get their agenda anyway.

Bush’s rejection of solar panels and wind is not done in good faith — it’s a framing issue — but there are reasons to be critical, and reasons to encourage public oversight. BUSH IS NOT DOING IT FOR THESE JUST REASONS — especially when oil & gas is being rubber-stamped all over the place.

we need to be wise with where and how we develop renewables — simply changing technology will not solve our problems. wind farms on endangered species habitat is no more green than oil & gas or livestock grazing on the same critical habitat — it may be somewhat better — but there are alternatives – plenty of marginal ag lands all over the west NOT BEING USED that are trashed beyond restoration and have the same generation potential as public lands.

Maybe we can gear up a contest.

Thanks.

there are plenty of marginal agricultural private lands in the West – no longer utilized for agricultural production but already torn up beyond hope for restoration – that would be far more appropriate to develope alternative technologies than the rapidly diminishing wild places we have left.

love that concept, begreen. it would also help revitalize rural ag communities by bringing them the income from leases….