FrankenFeinstein says solar panels will "spoil" desert

[DougMD]

Ok, so now we are coming full circle. The democrats are against the use of fossil fuels and nukes, but are all for the much more expensive wind and solar. But wait, uncle Ted didn't want wind farms tens of miles off the coast of Martha's vineyard, and now FrankenFeinstein says solar panels will look unsightly in the desert, even with environmentalist communists spending money hand over fist for countless studies. There you have it, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. Somehow, as we're about to spend $2 trillion on cap and trade taxes through much higher utility bills (as if we can afford it!), democrats offer ZERO REAL solutions! [:@]



Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said development of solar and wind facilities in California's Mojave Desert would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public

AP
Saturday, March 21, 2009


[/align][/align][/align][/align][/align]powered by Baynote
[/align][/align][/align][/align][/align]WASHINGTON -- 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.
Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
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.
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. David Myers, the conservancy's executive director, said the solar projects would do great harm to the region's desert tortoise population.
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy.
Feinstein said the lands in question were donated or purchased with the intent that they would be protected forever. But the Bureau of Land Management considers the land now open to all types of development, except mining. That policy led the state to consider large swaths of the land for future renewable energy production.
"This is unacceptable," Feinstein said in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "I urge you to direct the BLM to suspend any further consideration of leases to develop former railroad lands for renewable energy or for any other purpose."
In a speech last year, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger complained about environmental concerns slowing down the approval of solar plants in California.
"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.
But Karen Douglas, chairman of the California Energy Commission, said Feinstein's proposal could be a "win-win" for energy and conservation. The governor's office said Douglas was speaking on the administration's behalf.
"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.
Douglas said that if the national monument lines were drawn without consideration of renewable energy then a conflict was likely, but it's early enough in the planning process that she's confident the state will be able to get more solar and wind projects up and running without hurting the environment.
"We think we can do both," Douglas said. "We think this is an opportunity to accelerate both."
Greg Miller of the Bureau of Land Management said there are 14 solar energy and five wind energy projects that have submitted applications seeking to develop on what's referred to as the former Catellus lands. None of the projects are close to being approved, he said.
The land lies in the southeast corner of California, between the existing Mojave National Preserve on the north and Joshua Tree National Park on the south.
"They all have to go through a rigorous environmental analysis now," Miller said. "It will be at best close to two years out before we get some of these grants approved."
Feinstein's spokesman, Gil Duran, said the senator looks forward to working with the governor and the Interior Department on the issue.
"There's plenty of room in America's deserts for the bold expansion of renewable energy projects," Duran said

[/align]

[Sharpknife]

I don't see where she is saying that "non donated land" shouldn't be used, though I may be wrong. If I donated land for elk habitat and then the fed wanted to use it for something that was not compatible with my wishes I'd raise holy hell as well. There are millions of acres of public ( non donated) land that should be able to be accessed.

[Doe Dumper]

LMAO Perhaps grass huts for the peasants?

[Mr. Conservatism]

Ok, so now we are coming full circle. The democrats are against the use of fossil fuels and nukes, but are all for the much more expensive wind and solar. But wait, uncle Ted didn't want wind farms tens of miles off the coast of Martha's vineyard, and now FrankenFeinstein says solar panels will look unsightly in the desert, even with environmentalist communists spending money hand over fist for countless studies. There you have it, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. Somehow, as we're about to spend $2 trillion on cap and trade taxes through much higher utility bills (as if we can afford it!), democrats offer ZERO REAL solutions! [:@]

They don't mind if those things are placed in YOUR back yard, but not in theirs. There is a double standard here that stinks to high heaven.

Our wonderful legislative branch arranges for their own pay raises. Anybody here get to decide how big a pay raise you'll get?

They have allowed the Social Security system to worsen while giving themselves the ultimate pension.....their full salary for life...and after just one term! Take that away and let them pay into Social Security like the rest of us. Perhaps then they'll do something about fixing it. If we are going to retain a system like that, it ought to be there and it ought to be fair ..to everybody.


Republicans and Democrats both share the guilt in these kinds of double standards and special treatment.

The solution: start stripping away the perks and take action to prevent Senators and Congressmen from serving for life. The President is limited to two terms. Theirs could be limited too.

It always amazes me that people will spend millions in campaign funds to earn a Senator's or Congressman's salary. Furthermore, I also wonder why some whoenter the legislature as non-wealthy persons ultimately leave those positions as millionaires.

We need new faces and fresh ideas in government.
Ther's way too many lawyers in congress.

Dr. Phil often asks..."and how's that workin' for ya?"

I suggest that status quo government hasn't been working so well for us.
We need to encourage the smartest and bightest people with good common sense to serve in government. The common sense is more important to me than an Ive League education. I'm not seeing too much of that.

[Sharpknife]

ORIGINAL: Mr. Conservatism

They don't mind if those things are placed in YOUR back yard, but not in theirs. There is a double standard here that stinks to high heaven.

Our wonderful legislative branch arranges for their own pay raises. Anybody here get to decide how big a pay raise you'll get?

They have allowed the Social Security system to worsen while giving themselves the ultimate pension.....their full salary for life...and after just one term! Take that away and let them pay into Social Security like the rest of us. Perhaps then they'll do something about fixing it. If we are going to retain a system like that, it ought to be there and it ought to be fair ..to everybody.


Republicans and Democrats both share the guilt in these kinds of double standards and special treatment.

The solution: start stripping away the perks and take action to prevent Senators and Congressmen from serving for life. The President is limited to two terms. Theirs could be limited too.

It always amazes me that people will spend millions in campaign funds to earn a Senator's or Congressman's salary. Furthermore, I also wonder why some whoenter the legislature as non-wealthy persons ultimately leave those positions as millionaires.

We need new faces and fresh ideas in government.
Ther's way too many lawyers in congress.

Dr. Phil often asks..."and how's that workin' for ya?"

I suggest that status quo government hasn't been working so well for us.
We need to encourage the smartest and bightest people with good common sense to serve in government. The common sense is more important to me than an Ive League education. I'm not seeing too much of that.

I'm one Dem who will show you where in my back yard I think you can put them. Then again, I"™m one Dem who says if you come to take my guns, I will shoot you with them ! The problem with term limits are that while the Pol's have to leave, the bureaucrats get to stay and ultimately they begin to run the show because the new Pol is clueless when he/she arrives. So you say, get rid of both, but this leads to its own set of problems as we don't have the time to educate everyone every two or four years.
The only protection we have against pay raises is that they cannot GET that raise until after they stand for election again. If they voted themselves a raise, vote them out. Of course then the folks from a state that didn"™t remove their Pol are better served as seniority determines who holds what committee seats. LOL it"™s almost as if we are screwed either way!
I"™d advocate that any elected official receives the same benefits that everyone else in the Organization gets, and that their retirement comes from SS, or their 401K just like mine. What is good for the goose"¦"¦.
As to getting the best and the brightest, it seems we are limited by greed as that person can do so much better in the private sectors, than in government. What we need are patriots, who put the common good ahead of their own.

[Fieldmouse]

All I can say oil price has been climbing back up. Come on $75!!!!!!

[DougMD]

Sharpknife, the problem is, you have a dem neighbor on each side of you who says "no," and one three miles from you who says a windmill in YOUR backyard ruins THEIR view. Bottom line, dems are idealistic, and have no concept of REALITY, in the sense of putting forth a way to go that can is reasonable in terms of cost and doability. And jacking up the cost of fossil fuels by a $2 trillion tax SCHEME does not count for making alternatives cost feasible!

[Mr. Conservatism]

I'm one Dem who will show you where in my back yard I think you can put them. Then again, I"™m one Dem who says if you come to take my guns, I will shoot you with them ! The problem with term limits are that while the Pol's have to leave, the bureaucrats get to stay and ultimately they begin to run the show because the new Pol is clueless when he/she arrives. So you say, get rid of both, but this leads to its own set of problems as we don't have the time to educate everyone every two or four years.
The only protection we have against pay raises is that they cannot GET that raise until after they stand for election again. If they voted themselves a raise, vote them out. Of course then the folks from a state that didn"™t remove their Pol are better served as seniority determines who holds what committee seats. LOL it"™s almost as if we are screwed either way!
I"™d advocate that any elected official receives the same benefits that everyone else in the Organization gets, and that their retirement comes from SS, or their 401K just like mine. What is good for the goose"¦"¦.
As to getting the best and the brightest, it seems we are limited by greed as that person can do so much better in the private sectors, than in government. What we need are patriots, who put the common good ahead of their own.

Good points, Sharpknife. I wish more Democrats held some of your views. I remember back in the late 1950's and 1960's when there were many moderate/conservative Democrats. Of course, there are still some left in the south. John F. Kennedy was actually a member of the National Rifle Association. It is interesting how political parties change through the years. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Sharpknife]

ORIGINAL: Mr. Conservatism

Good points, Sharpknife. I wish more Democrats held some of your views. I remember back in the late 1950's and 1960's when there were many moderate/conservative Democrats. Of course, there are still some left in the south. John F. Kennedy was actually a member of the National Rifle Association. It is interesting how political parties change through the years. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks Mr. C.,
Agreed it is interesting how things change. The Republicans used to be fiscally conservative as well, and used to stand up for individual rights. Sometimes now I think how could this party spend like they do and why the hell are they telling women what they can or can't do with their own body"™s?

[Sharpknife]

ORIGINAL: DougMD

Sharpknife, the problem is, you have a dem neighbor on each side of you who says "no," and one three miles from you who says a windmill in YOUR backyard ruins THEIR view. Bottom line, dems are idealistic, and have no concept of REALITY, in the sense of putting forth a way to go that can is reasonable in terms of cost and doability. And jacking up the cost of fossil fuels by a $2 trillion tax SCHEME does not count for making alternatives cost feasible!

Come on Doug,
I could make the same statement about Republicans having no concept about reality and point to several cases, but that won't solve the problem. All of us who are resonable have to let reason, not ideology, lead us in both our thoughts and our words.Wind, solar, bio and a plethora of others options can, with our combined efforts, can help us find a way to supply the energy needs of our nation without being held hostage by those whose geography gave them the lions share of oil.
While I might question T. Boone Pickins motives ( I haven't made up my mind) I do agree that if we continue totransfer our wealth to other nations, we will someday be the "have nots".