I think both of Brad's articles are excellent. I'm just
adding comment and although some of it may come off sounding anti-renewables,
let me just state for the record that I'm "not anti-renewables." No,
seriously, I'm fine with rooftop solar, properly sited wind farms, and I think
we should keep most existing hydroelectric. Nuclear certainly can't do it all.
Money quote:
A new
study in Current Biology reports that Earth has lost 10 percent of
its wilderness since the early 1990s —an
area twice the size of Alaska. "The amount of wilderness loss in just
two decades is staggering and very saddening," said lead author James
Watson of the University of Queensland.
A wilderness area is, by definition, free of human industry
(roads, agriculture, mining, etc) which includes the the sight of power stations
on distant ridge lines and hilltops as well as the forest cleared to provide corridors for
the power lines that lead from them.
The loss of wilderness is only part of the story. As was
mentioned in Plumer's article, you can't recreate intact ecosystems once
you destroy them, including those that are not part of a wilderness area. A
case in point is the Ivanpah solar thermal power station that usurped intact
desert tortoise habitat , and never mind that it may also be incinerating up to
6,000
birds a year.
Kudos to Plumer for including a link to a report from the
Breakthrough Institute about using technology and innovation to shrink our
environmental footprint (GMO-free organic gardening, grass-fed beef, wood
stoves, and the 100 mile diet are not in the game plan).
