Sorry Desert Tortoise. No room for you in Google's Earth Day paradise.
Today is Earth Day, a once grassroots movement seeking to remind people to pay attention to the earth which has now grown to become a global event apparently "celebrated" by over a billion people - much of it courtesy of your neighborhood multinational corporations who have co-opted the day to urge you to buy more products at special discounts to "celebrate Earth Day". They must mean "celebrate our collective destruction of this earth for profit and a few fun consumer products and gadgets". Why, instead of actually going out and planting a tree today, you can enjoy playing Lorax Garden" on your iPhone! Download for free today!! After all, why bother getting your hands dirty in an actual garden when you can get virtual karma playing it on your smartphone. Surely that's what the Lorax wanted us to do, no?
As part of these corporate celebrations of the once-grassroots movement, Google sports this image of an impossibly idyllic edenic paradise as their doodle for the day:
Lovely, isn't it? Pandas and penguins and tigers living in harmony with the corporate logo tastefully hidden amid the verdant scenery!
Unfortunately, Google's vision of paradise has no room for the Desert Tortoise, the Joshua Tree, or the ancient mesquites and all the other poor denizens of the Mojave Desert, just a few hundred miles outside Google's corporate office windows. You see, just last week, Google upped their investment in the "green" solar energy company Brightsource, pouring in another $168 million to support that company's massive solar projects in the Mojave Desert. Never mind that the project is already killing endangered tortoises, destroying their habitat along with that of all the other denizens of the Mojave's unique biodiversity. And never mind that this kind of concentrated power generation with associated transmission costs and losses is an outdated model for this century. After all, combating global warming by switching to non-fossil-fuel energy sources is the be-all and end-all of environmental movements these days, we are told. By none other than the Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal, who thinks conserving land is just "boring" compared to using exciting new "green" technologies to destroy habitats! This massive solar power generation technology is so exciting, it seems, that even Science Friday invited Madrigal to celebrate it on their Earth Day broadcast - where Ira Flatow forgot to ask any questions about the ecological impact of putting massive solar plants in the Mojave:
What's doubly sad this Earth Day is that Madrigal is not alone. Too many environmentalist nonprofits and activists have bought into this model of green technology. One that merely substitutes one kind of power generation for another "greener" one without questioning the whole model! Why must we generate power at such massive scales, entailing land degradation, transmission losses, and a host of other problems, rather than developing smaller-scale technologies for distributed power generation from rooftops and parking lots? Whatever happened to "small is beautiful"? And why not put larger plants, if they're needed, in brownfields and other land that we've already severely degraded through our other uses instead of bulldozing tortoise habitat? After all, there is plenty of such land within California's urban/agriculture matrix which already covers more of the state than the remaining desert patches. If Germany, not known for its bright sun, can generate a significant amount of its power from rooftops in a distributed model, why must the US have to destroy remnant habitats still containing biodiversity? And why is Google, a company once at the cutting edge of innovation, with a motto "don't be evil", a supposed champion of the open-source internet as a force for democracy, i.e., distributed power, now investing in concentrated large-scale power projects mired in the old models of centralized production and distribution?!
Why aren't more environmental groups raising these questions? Why is it left to a handful of "useful idiots" like Chris Clarke and Solar Done Right?
More importantly, why are we not asking the more fundamental question: WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED TO KEEP USING SO MUCH DAMN ENERGY??!! Why can't we cut down on the energy we currently waste, become more efficient, and work on reducing our massive ecological footprint by using less power-hungry products?
Oh, I forgot... how can we ask these questions, when the corporations are dangling all that shiny new magical technology in front of us all the time? Bright shiny smart phones where we can go play the Lorax game... what were you going on about the environment for, mate?
Sorry Lorax. Sorry Desert Tortoise. Sorry Mesquite. And Sorry Earth. We've sold you all out for a few shiny baubles. Happy Earth Day.
As part of these corporate celebrations of the once-grassroots movement, Google sports this image of an impossibly idyllic edenic paradise as their doodle for the day:
Unfortunately, Google's vision of paradise has no room for the Desert Tortoise, the Joshua Tree, or the ancient mesquites and all the other poor denizens of the Mojave Desert, just a few hundred miles outside Google's corporate office windows. You see, just last week, Google upped their investment in the "green" solar energy company Brightsource, pouring in another $168 million to support that company's massive solar projects in the Mojave Desert. Never mind that the project is already killing endangered tortoises, destroying their habitat along with that of all the other denizens of the Mojave's unique biodiversity. And never mind that this kind of concentrated power generation with associated transmission costs and losses is an outdated model for this century. After all, combating global warming by switching to non-fossil-fuel energy sources is the be-all and end-all of environmental movements these days, we are told. By none other than the Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal, who thinks conserving land is just "boring" compared to using exciting new "green" technologies to destroy habitats! This massive solar power generation technology is so exciting, it seems, that even Science Friday invited Madrigal to celebrate it on their Earth Day broadcast - where Ira Flatow forgot to ask any questions about the ecological impact of putting massive solar plants in the Mojave:
What's doubly sad this Earth Day is that Madrigal is not alone. Too many environmentalist nonprofits and activists have bought into this model of green technology. One that merely substitutes one kind of power generation for another "greener" one without questioning the whole model! Why must we generate power at such massive scales, entailing land degradation, transmission losses, and a host of other problems, rather than developing smaller-scale technologies for distributed power generation from rooftops and parking lots? Whatever happened to "small is beautiful"? And why not put larger plants, if they're needed, in brownfields and other land that we've already severely degraded through our other uses instead of bulldozing tortoise habitat? After all, there is plenty of such land within California's urban/agriculture matrix which already covers more of the state than the remaining desert patches. If Germany, not known for its bright sun, can generate a significant amount of its power from rooftops in a distributed model, why must the US have to destroy remnant habitats still containing biodiversity? And why is Google, a company once at the cutting edge of innovation, with a motto "don't be evil", a supposed champion of the open-source internet as a force for democracy, i.e., distributed power, now investing in concentrated large-scale power projects mired in the old models of centralized production and distribution?!
Why aren't more environmental groups raising these questions? Why is it left to a handful of "useful idiots" like Chris Clarke and Solar Done Right?
More importantly, why are we not asking the more fundamental question: WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED TO KEEP USING SO MUCH DAMN ENERGY??!! Why can't we cut down on the energy we currently waste, become more efficient, and work on reducing our massive ecological footprint by using less power-hungry products?
Oh, I forgot... how can we ask these questions, when the corporations are dangling all that shiny new magical technology in front of us all the time? Bright shiny smart phones where we can go play the Lorax game... what were you going on about the environment for, mate?
Sorry Lorax. Sorry Desert Tortoise. Sorry Mesquite. And Sorry Earth. We've sold you all out for a few shiny baubles. Happy Earth Day.
4 comments:
so true.. superlike for your writing.
I've been screaming this for a couple of years now. What the hell is wrong with people when they can't see the obvious?! we have thousands of acres of glass and steel and concrete and asphalt and rooftops bathing is the sunshine all over the nation, begging for panels to absorb and use it, but no, we have to coat the "useless" and "barren" deserts with them instead. W! T! F! But no one is listening, no one cares. certainly not Obama, or Biden, or Google. We're screwed.
We do use a lot of energy. Thus the demand to produce more gets higher by the day, for without energy, our economy mine come to a halt. But despite the rising demand for energy, we can still cope with it because we can tap on the renewable source of it.
It might take some time for the full transformation to take effect, but we surely are getting there.
That's really why we need to find better sustainable energy technology. Our demand is going high but our resources are dwindling.
- solar panels cost webmaster
Post a Comment