“4,200 Joshua trees are scheduled to be removed and replaced by solar panels for the Aratina Solar Project near Boron, CA in June of this year. They will not be salvaged but funds based on the size of the tree will be placed in a mitigation bank”, according to Basin & Range Watch.
Just in case you don’t know what a mitigation bank is? Well, it is a way to offset the ecological loss of a development project by compensating for the preservation and restoration of a different area. How is this right?
In 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that Joshua Trees are not endangered. They concluded they are unlikely to be significantly threatened in the next 50 years.
However, a study conducted in 2013 revealed that Joshua trees are experiencing a halt in reproduction across approximately half of their range within Joshua Tree National Park. As temperatures rise and conditions become drier, it is anticipated that the available habitat for Joshua trees will diminish significantly. By the end of the century, as much as 90 percent of the Joshua Tree habitat could vanish due to these environmental changes. You read that right, a reduction of 90 percent.
So, in the name of our Solar Agenda, to protect the world from greenhouse gases, let’s destroy another species and wait until it is too late to save them. I am not anti-solar. I am anti-destroying a species for the sake of an agenda. I have a bias, I love Joshua Trees.
I made a (peaceful, informed, and collaborative) comment — on topic, and arguably less angry or antagonistic than those up on this site discussion — I focused on the solar farm impacts to the desert ecosystem along with Joshua tree removal. It offers proactive means to address other concerns like “Jobs First” and Housing blockages in a truly collaborative environment.
I hoped that follow up would not be threatening to silos; and would lead to focused steps towards action and implementation.
Posts that were up before mine appeared re-posted with later time stamps–which leads us to wondering why this occurred? (screen shots available)
It appears the post was censored, and it is not SPAM.
Regardless I will find a way to continue the discussion if this “collaborative” site chooses not to share my post.
Fishy to see my post under review and these posts that were already up with new time stamps.
Testing if this comment goes up as “approved” before my original post?
The reasons NOT to do this project are well documented.
I am not speaking of greedy and hypocritical climate advocates who have already been exposed or flying in private jets, it’s not that “environmental economics” that cuts deepest.
It’s a reptile that makes a living under the desert surface; a moth or bat that pollinates a Joshua or shrub blossom; rootbound soils that withstand erosion and conserve precious mycorrhiza and moisture…
All less visible and more worthy than taking down a sell out agency, or the talking heads of big business and climate cash credits—
Those interested on both sides of this post already know there is no economic equivalent for the observed— (evidenced !) levels of ecosystem devastation that solar farms cause.
Science has moved all worthy action to bring energy; and activism to stop it—beyond the need for this sloppiness. It is reasonable to assume this is why such massive devastation is proposed in remote places where few people will ever advocate.
Point For “Climate Activists”:
Why generate more negative fire against your side— Biden’s campaign? Why defend billionaires whose fortune’s are made as creditors of environmental devastation? —
We listened to Al Gore, does he actually champion this unscientific and anti environmental developers getting paid for this project?
What failed agency has approved it?
Agree with comments saying there is “Middle Ground” and both developers AND advocates have proven it doesn’t exist on such visionless terms as are being proposed by solar farms
The visionary approach is to use MITIGATION funds to AVOID devastation. Not replace it. Does this not make sense to anyone?
Win-Win.
Entirely possible.
If this planet still calls for environmental activism—and I’d argue it does—
Let’s work together to bring direct evidence and broad knowledge to serve this worthwhile cause?
Lets examine the environmental costs with certainty of past renewable energy projects.
Refine the proposal.
Save capital and long term O/M costs for the developers.
MAKE our state more beautiful and commit to a more scientific process.
Then we will be ready to optimize valuable advocacy time along with energy from this resource.
Willing to work with developers who are willing to join active environmental leadership—
Please contact me.
Concentrated ‘clean” energy guarantees profits for the utility giants and justifies their “Grid.” Solar power is equally and freely distributed via the Sun. The Utility Commission’s main job is to provide political cover and profits for the Utility Companies. The Commission approves the across the board Grid Connection fee, even for those already using solar power they have on their own roof top.. The destruction of the Joshua Trees is just the start to the loss of the desert tortoise, birds, and other wildlife that depend on the Joshua Woodland habitat.
Follow the Money…
So sad. I didn’t even think of the desert tortoise. The Mojave Desert needs the trees for its ecology.
Well said. Even in the name of “green energy” and saving what is left of the planet’s natural living flora and fauna, it’s “greenbacks” that more often than not are used in “greenwashing” projects such as this one using a mitigation fund. “This offsets that.” Except that, when you are talking about living things found in nature, “dead and gone,” never to return, is just that. No amount of money will change that.
Had to polarize it with that last paragraph hey? Use a loaded cliche to stop the discussion needed to find common ground and save the trees?
Self defeating, and piss poor journalism as well.
Good job, Jason. Pedro’s gratuitously negative comment not withstanding, this was clearly written and posted as “perspective”, i.e., “opinion”. It was not as an in-depth journalistic piece of the topic, nor meant to be. I happen to agree with your “view”, which is yet another common synonym used for “Perspective”…and I have been following this story since it first appeared.
There’s a bill by Democratic State Assemblyman Juan Carrillo successfully working its way though the state legislature right now to allow developers greater latitude to destroy Joshua trees, as long as they can pay their way out of restrictions.