Saturday, March 21, 2009

Go green, just don't do it here

The title of the post is from one of the comments posted on foxnews in response to article Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels
California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.

Aesthetics of a barren desert? Tortoise population is more important then human population? Although I am no fan of solar energy -which would be not exist in a free market- the point is that this story shows us that for environmentalists and their ilk it's not really about clean energy, environment or anything else. It's really about being anti-man in the sense that everything else (a tortoise, spotted owl, some fish, insect, tree or an insect) is preferable over human beings. Ayn Rand said almost 40 years ago:
"The worst fears of land conservationists concern not the accidental spoilage of land by waste. but its exploitation by man to build mines, roads and cities. In time he may encroach so far on his greenery that he reduces the amount of air he has breathe."
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.

An empty barren desert as a national monument for America? You've got to be kidding me. Lets declare New York skyline as a national monument and restore it to it's pre-9/11 glory. Even better, let people build a new city in the desert. Allow people to flourish in it without hindrance and then declare it a national monument. Lets tell the good senator that there is no place in American politics for people who want to prevent future development.

The Wildlands Conservancy orchestrated the government's purchase of the land between 1999-2004. It negotiated a discount sale from the real estate arm of the former Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroad and then contributed $40 million to help pay for the purchase.

During early days the government saw wisdom in letting people stake claims to newly discovered lands and let them flourish. Now it is buying it back to prevent development. When will majority of Americans see through these people? When will development not be a dirty word? They are using money taken as taxes from productive people to help finance there anti-productive ventures. The irony is that the land was bought from Santa Fe Railroad which built its railway over the legendary Santa Fe trail ruts. It was Santa Fe trail which conquered the prairie with its commerce. The story of the Santa Fe Trail is a story of trade and the railroad further enhanced that story.

"If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it," Schwarzenegger said at Yale University.

Even the Governor who became green in effort to fulfill his political goals is going green in the face with frustration.

"The opportunity we see in the Feinstein bill is to jump-start our own efforts to find the best sites for development and to come up with a broader conservation plan that mitigates the impact of the development," Douglas said.

Ayn Rand said in the "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" that there is no such thing as a "restrained progress". Mitigated development is a contradiction in terms. As for the conservation, it is clear that they want to conserve anything, except man.

"There's plenty of room in America's deserts for the bold expansion of renewable energy projects," Duran said.

I hope there is room in America's mind for the bold expansion of reason and enlightment else we are headed for the new dark ages.


Burgess Laughlin said...

Thank you for drawing attention to this situation. I have given up systematically reading general news sources. The process is to time-consuming and depressing.

> ". . . solar energy -which would be not exist in a free market . . ."

Solar energy projects as envisioned--and I use the word deliberately--by Environmentalists are indeed usually not profitable. However, as you know, taking advantage of the sun has been around a long time, as a natural, unsubsidized economic endeavor. One example is the building of greenhouses. They are "low-tech" and produce substantial results.

Solar energy might someday be so profitable that it grows naturally -- so to speak -- in the marketplace, but without the aggression now employed by governments to subsidize it.

Again, thank you for the article.