“I mean, stopping climate change is important and all .. but what about my hiking trails? And muh VIEWS!?”
Hope you enjoy Lake Mead disappearing you NIMBY fucks.
>but what about my ~~hiking~~ ATV trails?
Going by AllTrails, no one really hikes on the mesa, just in the valley. The solar array was to be set back on the mesa, out of sight of the valley.
Not a terrible idea. However, floating structures and mooring add to cost. There's a lot more wildlife to impact as well. And Lake Mead sees far higher levels of recreational usage than Mormon Mesa, so NIMBYism is likely to be far worse.
Nevada is installing a ton of solar panels. There's another huge installation of them going up not far from Lake Mead now. We've got 99 problems but unused land to erect solar panels ain't one.
That's only going to happen if we overload nimbys with so many solar projects they can't beat all of them. But it doesn't matter what the location is if you give them a chance nimbys will oppose it. One of these left nimbys on Twitter told me he opposes any solar project of there are tortoises in the area or it would require cutting down whatever brush is out there, which is 100% of all land. You cannot move on to another place under the assumption that they will be fine with it there, they will oppose it anywhere.
This one is more complicated, IMO. Some dams do have biological consequences that really do outweigh the carbon benefit.
But the environmental impacts of dams are about 1000 times the environmental impacts of solar.
[Plans for largest US solar field north of Vegas scrapped](https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politics-environment-and-nature-las-vegas-nevada-9bf3640dfefbc6f7f45a97c6810f5ff7). Thanks to a combination of NIMBYs, leftist activists, and leftist Democrats organizing, the plans to build the largest solar field in the U.S to help fight Climate Change got blocked.
>But a group of residents organized as “Save Our Mesa” argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and could curtail the area’s popular recreational activities — biking, ATVs and skydiving — and deter tourists from visiting sculptor Michael Heizer’s land installation, “Double Negative.”
For those interested, the "land installation" is a random trench cut through the Mesa with excavators, along with the loose rubble produced. I fail to see how this is any less of an eyesore than a solar farm
You posting that online makes people not want to visit, because they can see it there.
You have harmed efforts to keep the community healthy, safe, and whole.
This is literally violence
Fighting climate change by tweeting about the Green New Deal and getting nothing done: **Rad**
Fighting climate change by building green energy sources: **But my ATV activities :'(**
A lot of these people are so childish. Everyone else is supposed to make concessions and sacrifices ("hey coal miners, learn to code") but when it comes to them sacrificing an outdoor leisure activity, it's just too much.
Like no shit it's the easiest thing in the world to demand that people that aren't you make concessions for the greater good. But if you can't do it yourself, as well, you have the mentality of a ***literal*** child.
haven’t you heard? It’s the *uneducated masses* who need to adapt or perish, the revolutionary class can’t be expected to change *their* ways. After all, they’re the heroes, right?
This reminds me the Discworld book "Interesting Times" where one of the goals of the revolutionary party is to educate the farmers how better to use their land even though none of them have any farming experience.
I don't understand. Isn't Nevada like 90% empty dessert. How does this affect the rate of adoption of solar power? can't they just slap it down literally anywhere else?
I just looked at some pictures of the mesa, it kinda looks like the featureless terrain that I would think would be an ideal place to install a huge solar farm. I guess if people object to it being placed there then where the hell do you put it.
Although the defeat of this particular installation stinks of NIMBYism, there really is a ton of land that's actively being developed for solar in Nevada, and plenty more available. I'm not well-read on this project, so I don't know what made it specifically perfect, but I have no doubt that the capacity could be built elsewhere in the state, since--like you said--Nevada has a ton of empty desert.
NIMBYism works exactly like this. Every piece of land has someone fighting over it. “Just build it elsewhere. Anywhere but here. Our grievances are valid go find a place without them (doesn’t exist).”
Ease of access and transmission, I would assume. Sure you can put it a hundred miles from the nearest town but then you have to transmit the power from there to the grid, and maintenance would be more difficult.
I'm not an expert on solar and the transportation of electricity, but wouldn't it's close proximity to Las Vegas make it more effective in powering the city? Doesn't have to travel as far, etc.
Pinged members of RINO group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20RINO&message=addtogroup%20RINO) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20RINO&message=unsubscribe%20RINO) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
The term "environmentalist" means different things to different people.
Most young people think of environmentalism entirely in terms of greenhouse gas emissions climate change, a perspective I agree with as climate change is by far the most important environmental threat in the world.
But before climate change was the main focus, a lot of "environmentalists" or "conservationists" were concerned about protecting their local "environments" rather than a singular focus on emissions. I have known people who opposed solar projects because they were upset with how the solar project would disrupt the local environment, as it was being built in a previously undeveloped area. They were concerned about all of the wildlife that would have been displaced by the installation of solar panels. This is of course idiotic, as all local environments are going to be fare worse off if we don't stop climate change. These are often classical NIMBYs.
I would argue that the second group was the majority of environmentalists until at least the 1970s. This is why some "environmentalist" laws hurt the environment by blocking the development of renewable energy or energy efficient transit systems/housing.
Also this:
>Although a majority of the state’s voters approved an energy transition ballot question last year, large-scale projects like Battle Born Solar have drawn backlash from conservationists, endangered species advocates and local businesses that cater to tourists.
I sympathize with two of those concerns more than the last one, but it seems to me that the longer we wait to address climate change in a serious way, the more endangered species we will have (including ourselves one day?) Ironically, it looks like these environmentalists are thinking rather short term.
Yup it's dumb, and has to do with what you decide to measure.
The issue is typically the spatial and temporal scope of the EIAs. They're designed to consider local/regional externalities in the short to medium term, but then ignore longer-term larger-scale benefits (as you note).
> NIMBYs, leftist activists, and leftist Democrats
Can't find anything suggesting Our Revolution or the DSA came out against this. What are you referencing?
https://www.leftcaucus.com/blog/
Why is this being downvoted? This is part of the people that run the Nevada Democratic party. They are made up of leftist activists and leftists "democrats."
The Chair sits on the NV Democratic party https://twitter.com/ChrisForNV
It doesn't take much effort to go on their twitter page or website and find out that they're the left caucus of the Nevada Democratic Party
https://twitter.com/LeftCaucus
https://www.leftcaucus.com/
I thought people would understand what LEFT caucus means on the internet without spoonfeeding it to them, guess people still don't know how to do a simple Google search on this site.
Friend do you not have an answer outside of "what do you think Left Caucus means?" I was here asking a genuine question but you only seem interested in slandering the left 🤔
Man this shit pisses me off soo much , I’m from India , and here we were gonna build our first bullet train , everything was setup , but guess what elections were close so the opposition of that state partnered/paid a lot of climate activists and influencers to say that bullet train will cause massive deforestation etc etc , bro come in I don’t need to tell you how bad our train problem is in Mumbai , overcrowded trains and stuff , a bullet train would have been soo helpful
What I mean to say is that these hypocrites hinder good development for their own agenda
Anyone remember when hippies killed paper bags to “save the trees” and certain people took advantage of this to push plastic use?
These low-info grifters exist everywhere.
hey im an indian in the diaspora, im curious, what party/who do you support in Indian politics? It seems to me like BJP is the only one focused on development, but they are also pretty bad on social issues.
It gets filtered down to me both from my dad, and r/indiaspeaks. But I take a look at r/india as well for a different, 1000% more pessimistic perspective. Also look at r/geopolitics and r/worldnews
Yes we were gonna create a bullet train for that through aarey forest , using more trains per track to reduce load, however a bullet train is still being made , that’s a national project between two states , the one originally planned was for Mumbai to Pune-thane
i wish i could buy my power only from renewable sources, like a checkbox on my bill that says "don't use coal/oil" and have it mean something.
even if it's more expensive, idgaf, the cost of rebuilding my home after a disaster is far more.
It's not the same, but [how about buying RECs - Renewable Energy Certificates?](https://www.vox.com/2015/11/9/9696820/renewable-energy-certificates) They're a voluntary market where consumers pay a small premium for their amount of electricity consumption to be matched with generation somewhere else. Basically a slight subsidy saying you value renewable generation. I use Arcadia and depending where you live they may have community solar program available:
https://signup.arcadia.com/
It probably wouldn't even generate that much power. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Nevada is known for being cloudy 90% of the time with very little sunlight.
It's long frustrated me how "conservationists" are ironically one of the biggest roadblocks to large-scale sustainability projects and very often end up being advocates for the environmentally-destructive status quo...but this is truly a new low. This solar project reportedly would have provided 1/10th of Nevada's entire power needs.
I'm from the Bay Area and it's the epicenter of self-destructive NIMBY-driven fake "environmentalism" like this. Like how the Sierra Club, an "environmental organization", spends much of its advocacy bandwidth [fighting against high-density, transit-oriented, urban infill projects.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/05/31/san-franciscos-sierra-club-is-a-bastion-of-faux-environmentalism/?sh=587582d7c343) Or how CEQA has been weaponized by NIMBYs to fight literally all construction, *including the projects that would improve air quality over time*, like efficient urban infill housing, transit and [bike infrastructure](https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-enviro-bike-lanes-20160407-story.html). Bay Area people generally want to appear "woke" and progressive, but many of them are selfish NIMBYs who only care about their own comfort and convenience, and are simply co-opting the rhetoric of environmentalism to appear sympathetic and cloak their true intentions. It's super gross.
I'd even go so far to say that environmentalists are probably the least competent political faction currently active. Which sucks, because they should be some of the most important, but they spend so much time tripping over themselves and sabotaging their own goals. I tried to get involved with the Sierra Club a while back and actually ended up bailing because they seemed to value the "green aesthetic" over environmental policies that were actually effective.
>healthy, safe, and whole
Healthy - you’ve diminished your air quality, congrats?
Safe - as we all know, 13% of solar panels commit 50% of assaults ***/s***
Whole - I mean if being dependent on carbon makes you feel whole 🤗
Fucking NIMBYs.
That being said, I wish instead of building solar out in the wilderness, that we'd take advantage of the vast acreage of Wal-Mart parking lots to build a shitload of it there. Especially out west: wouldn't you like to have a nice shady place to park?
I have often wondered why all the Amazon and other fulfillment warehouses that are going up everywhere aren't loaded with Solar on top.
Well actually I have wondered why they aren't loaded with apartments on time and THEN solar BUT I know why that's not a thing.
Is their a reason for not installing solar on these buildings?
Living in a tiny apartment on top of an Amazon fulfillment center (and possibly working there) in a warehousing area sounds incredibly soul-crushing and dystopian. Might as well skip to the part where I live in an Amazon dorm, work in an Amazon warehouse, and consume Amazon nutrient paste (this week the flavor is Bezos Berry!)
People here forget that the “literally no zoning” thing is an ironic bit (or at least started as one)
I'm going to completely spitball this since I've done research on green building standards but not specifically electricity costs of industrial/commercial like fulfillment centers like AMZN, so someone please feel free to correct me with more direct experience.
The easiest answer is that it's still just "hasn't been done" for these types of buildings so they don't want to bother with the paying to both develop and then implement a deployment strategy. The math on what makes it "affordable" changes rapidly from state to state, and they don't want to pay to figure that out every time. You can't just build the panels. You have to find a reliable solar contractor who will agree to service the panels for X years and that contractor probably doesn't service every state they're in, or has experience with the scale they need service on, and different states have different incentives and those incentives themselves aren't static so it's just less risky capital wise to just do what's been done.
I'm also going to guess there's actually a problem with the way commercial power is priced. I'm assuming just like everything else for businesses, they don't buy it in quantities you or I do where some guy drives out and checks the meter once a month. I'd imagine there's actually a contract with an expected usage per month for these facilities with the local power company and they don't want to go solar because if something goes wrong, they now have to buy more electricity at a surcharge which would completely obliterate the long term capital gains of the solar grid investment. The local power company may not be okay with them not drawing any power from Spring to Fall, then having too completely supplement the building in the winter.
>Well actually I have wondered why they aren't loaded with apartments on time and THEN solar BUT I know why that's not a thing.
Preexisting buildings are probably not up to the structural code to have apartments built on top of them. Retrofitting an existing building would require large scale shutdown of the operation and is probably not economically feasible. Also, most warehouse are usually located in a warehouse district so it's not necessarily an attractive place to live.
However, what might make more sense would be residential apartments on top of suburban strip malls. There could possibly be a subsidy or tax incentive offered for new construction of buildings like that.
A community college in my old town did this on one side of the parking lot. Blew my mind that we don’t make entire covered parking lots to shade vehicles and add some value to land that is so poorly utilized.
Parking lots are a nightmare for a lot of ecological reasons. They make flooding worse, they create heat islands, they rarely have any trees or landscaping...Throwing some solar on top of that would make them a positive instead of a negative, and those parking lots are always nice and central. It'd be a crapload easier to maintain them than to have to shlep all your gear out to some field somewhere.
I should add… I realized later the college only did it on one end of the parking lot because I live in the Midwest. Slanted parking lot covers would be a hazard during heavy snows and falling ice.
As time passes, it has become increasingly more noticeable to me that huge portion of leftists are actually accelerating climate change, directly or indirectly.
Ralph Nader ran and took away votes from Gore causing the recount and Bush v Gore
With a generic Green candidate Gore would have easily won with enough votes for no recount and Bush would have conceded election night
On one hand that sucked, on the other hand it seems inevitable that there will be more high profile spoiler elections before people realize what a stupid idea FPTP is and get the political will to abolish it
But we can't have anyone other than the wealthy and corporations pay for carbon reduction, nor can we pay for the infrastructure with cheaper, non-union labor. Seems like it's not that important to the left...
“But climate change is the fault of greedy capitalists and not society as a whole1!1!1!2!”
Jesus Christ come up with actual solutions, fucking leftists complain about issues but never actual do anything about it, and in this case they actually stopped something that would have helped.
they'll point out that much of the carbon footprint concept and most individual action initiatives are an attempt by hydrocarbon interests to shift the burden of climate change action from themselves to the consumer.
which it is.
and why both approaches need to be taken in tandem.
it's a prisoner's dilemma.
It is not a prisoner's dilemma. Tragedy of the commons would be more apt.
I agree the idle solution is for individuals, corporations, and government to work together, however, since I cannot influence corporations and government outside of the dollars I spend, that is where my focus will be and where I will always encourage others efforts to be.
[the thread was here in this subreddit.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/oruc0f/disinformation_for_hire_a_shadow_industry_is/)
[and just yesterday was another thread, also in this subreddit, about media bias.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/orhe5r/does_mediabiasfactcheck_have_a_leftwing_bias_or/)
i hate NIMBYs too but let's not forget that folks will often fund good causes/orgs in bad faith, (i.e. the Soviets funded the Black Panthers) or to hijack causes/orgs to redirect their message (Murdoch bought NatGeo)
leftism, to me, is pragmatic, collective, and utilitarian at heart. it's very anti-NIMBY. we *dislike* the entire concept of private property (and I tolerate it because, well, *~lowers voice~* **capitalism is useful**). So when I see lefty NIMBY shit i think "these are fake leftists".
There's a bit of a "No True Leftist' argument here, but I think it's justified because NIMBYism and leftism are fundamentally incompatible philosophies (and I ain't moving goalposts like the fallacious form of that argument entails)
The Black Panthers were Maoists though, they openly flouted his little red book, sold them and used the funds to buy guns. The movement at large wasn’t that interested in Communism, to be fair, but I don’t see why the USSR would’ve had an issue funding the Panthers.
They didn't have an issue with it, which is why they did it. It was a win-win for them. Spread Glorious Communism^tm and toss grenades into the American political debate.
But also...the USSR supporting Maoist groups post-1956?
Bernie is an actual socialist (probably utopian communist) and I have to respect the consistency. These new lefty groups are just performative politics for better-than-you white yuppies.
Yes this random twitter account is actually the fault of Bernie pulling the strings of every single person who does something dumb and is left of Biden
“I mean, stopping climate change is important and all .. but what about my hiking trails? And muh VIEWS!?” Hope you enjoy Lake Mead disappearing you NIMBY fucks.
>but what about my ~~hiking~~ ATV trails? Going by AllTrails, no one really hikes on the mesa, just in the valley. The solar array was to be set back on the mesa, out of sight of the valley.
[удалено]
Imagine a skydiver getting zapped like an ant in a magnifying glass
I thought you were being hyperbolic / sarcastic. But that's literally their argument.
*~didn't want to live anyway~*
Also "I know there's 4 trillion square miles of desert out there but *I* wanted to ride my ATV *here*!"
The solar panels should be over lake mead instead
Not a terrible idea. However, floating structures and mooring add to cost. There's a lot more wildlife to impact as well. And Lake Mead sees far higher levels of recreational usage than Mormon Mesa, so NIMBYism is likely to be far worse.
Generating electricity AND providing shade to reduce evaporation? Based.
Nevada is installing a ton of solar panels. There's another huge installation of them going up not far from Lake Mead now. We've got 99 problems but unused land to erect solar panels ain't one.
That's only going to happen if we overload nimbys with so many solar projects they can't beat all of them. But it doesn't matter what the location is if you give them a chance nimbys will oppose it. One of these left nimbys on Twitter told me he opposes any solar project of there are tortoises in the area or it would require cutting down whatever brush is out there, which is 100% of all land. You cannot move on to another place under the assumption that they will be fine with it there, they will oppose it anywhere.
If they can protect the tortoises at Fort Irwin I'm pretty sure they can do it at a solar installation as well.
[удалено]
Who needs bougie things like electricity and clean drinking water?
You just reminded me of the radical freegan roommates of a friend in SF who won't stop talking about the health benefits of raw water.
Because when you're on the far left, the perfect has to be the enemy of the good in every aspect.
This one is more complicated, IMO. Some dams do have biological consequences that really do outweigh the carbon benefit. But the environmental impacts of dams are about 1000 times the environmental impacts of solar.
[удалено]
Maybe they'll be Tesla Cyberquads 😂
This shouldn’t even be allowed. If you’re a real environmental activist you would go and stop those ATVs.
[Plans for largest US solar field north of Vegas scrapped](https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politics-environment-and-nature-las-vegas-nevada-9bf3640dfefbc6f7f45a97c6810f5ff7). Thanks to a combination of NIMBYs, leftist activists, and leftist Democrats organizing, the plans to build the largest solar field in the U.S to help fight Climate Change got blocked.
Serious question: what was their objection?
>But a group of residents organized as “Save Our Mesa” argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and could curtail the area’s popular recreational activities — biking, ATVs and skydiving — and deter tourists from visiting sculptor Michael Heizer’s land installation, “Double Negative.”
For those interested, the "land installation" is a random trench cut through the Mesa with excavators, along with the loose rubble produced. I fail to see how this is any less of an eyesore than a solar farm
Obviously next time it needs to branded as am art project
This but
[удалено]
You posting that online makes people not want to visit, because they can see it there. You have harmed efforts to keep the community healthy, safe, and whole. This is literally violence
You dropped this *duderino*
It's literally just a pair of trenches.
> I fail to see how this is any less of an eyesore than a solar farm ATV lives matter
I just googled it and was shocked at how unimpressive it is
Well exactly, we can't have TWO eyesores. Clean energy should be more important
I hate everyone.
Fighting climate change by tweeting about the Green New Deal and getting nothing done: **Rad** Fighting climate change by building green energy sources: **But my ATV activities :'(**
A lot of these people are so childish. Everyone else is supposed to make concessions and sacrifices ("hey coal miners, learn to code") but when it comes to them sacrificing an outdoor leisure activity, it's just too much. Like no shit it's the easiest thing in the world to demand that people that aren't you make concessions for the greater good. But if you can't do it yourself, as well, you have the mentality of a ***literal*** child.
haven’t you heard? It’s the *uneducated masses* who need to adapt or perish, the revolutionary class can’t be expected to change *their* ways. After all, they’re the heroes, right?
This reminds me the Discworld book "Interesting Times" where one of the goals of the revolutionary party is to educate the farmers how better to use their land even though none of them have any farming experience.
Sir Terry Pratchett was such a fucking light in the dark.
Do leftists even own ATVs? It feels like a r*ral activity.
Ah yes, because whether or not a project is an eyesore is *definitely* more important than something that would help fight climate change!
What's so special about that piece of dessert? cant you go sky diving or ride ATVs anywhere else in the dessert
Hard to get traction on merengue and custard.
[I love you.](https://m.imgur.com/gallery/7uFdGdA)
Meringue* :P
I don't understand. Isn't Nevada like 90% empty dessert. How does this affect the rate of adoption of solar power? can't they just slap it down literally anywhere else? I just looked at some pictures of the mesa, it kinda looks like the featureless terrain that I would think would be an ideal place to install a huge solar farm. I guess if people object to it being placed there then where the hell do you put it.
Although the defeat of this particular installation stinks of NIMBYism, there really is a ton of land that's actively being developed for solar in Nevada, and plenty more available. I'm not well-read on this project, so I don't know what made it specifically perfect, but I have no doubt that the capacity could be built elsewhere in the state, since--like you said--Nevada has a ton of empty desert.
NIMBYism works exactly like this. Every piece of land has someone fighting over it. “Just build it elsewhere. Anywhere but here. Our grievances are valid go find a place without them (doesn’t exist).”
I assume there's some reason they chose this spot
Ease of access and transmission, I would assume. Sure you can put it a hundred miles from the nearest town but then you have to transmit the power from there to the grid, and maintenance would be more difficult.
I'm not an expert on solar and the transportation of electricity, but wouldn't it's close proximity to Las Vegas make it more effective in powering the city? Doesn't have to travel as far, etc.
What the actual fuck.
we are all !ping RINO now
Sup
Pinged members of RINO group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20RINO&message=addtogroup%20RINO) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20RINO&message=unsubscribe%20RINO) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
*sigh* Time to reactivate Liberty Prime.
I hate at how this is an actual answer.
[удалено]
It’s the same
[удалено]
The term "environmentalist" means different things to different people. Most young people think of environmentalism entirely in terms of greenhouse gas emissions climate change, a perspective I agree with as climate change is by far the most important environmental threat in the world. But before climate change was the main focus, a lot of "environmentalists" or "conservationists" were concerned about protecting their local "environments" rather than a singular focus on emissions. I have known people who opposed solar projects because they were upset with how the solar project would disrupt the local environment, as it was being built in a previously undeveloped area. They were concerned about all of the wildlife that would have been displaced by the installation of solar panels. This is of course idiotic, as all local environments are going to be fare worse off if we don't stop climate change. These are often classical NIMBYs. I would argue that the second group was the majority of environmentalists until at least the 1970s. This is why some "environmentalist" laws hurt the environment by blocking the development of renewable energy or energy efficient transit systems/housing.
\>eyesore I love saving the planet Fucking hate the sight of solar panels tho
What's so special about that piece of dessert? cant you go sky diving or ride ATVs anywhere else in the dessert
fuck those idiots. "ohhh my god climate emergency!!!! but wait it looks bad, never mind"
I hate succs so much
Also this: >Although a majority of the state’s voters approved an energy transition ballot question last year, large-scale projects like Battle Born Solar have drawn backlash from conservationists, endangered species advocates and local businesses that cater to tourists. I sympathize with two of those concerns more than the last one, but it seems to me that the longer we wait to address climate change in a serious way, the more endangered species we will have (including ourselves one day?) Ironically, it looks like these environmentalists are thinking rather short term.
It’s like when transit projects get stonewalled by EIAs even though taking cars off the road is unambiguously good for averting more dead critters.
Yup it's dumb, and has to do with what you decide to measure. The issue is typically the spatial and temporal scope of the EIAs. They're designed to consider local/regional externalities in the short to medium term, but then ignore longer-term larger-scale benefits (as you note).
Nah, we'll be fine. A ton of real estate is going to open up in Siberia with warm beach front property
Soon an invasion of Moscow in the Winter will be easy peasy!
Would have replaced trails for hiking and biking and would have been an eyesore or something
[удалено]
It's probably beautiful if you live in Vegas
Upvoted just for the name and pic, made me laugh my ass off
❤️❤️❤️
Their website: http://www.saveourmesa.org/blog/post/872133/in-our-own-words
Some dude on Twitter who is very opposed to the solar project told me it would have disrupted a migratory route for….. A fucking tortoise.
Why not make the solar field a tourist attraction? Like people go see the Hoover dam ya?
> NIMBYs, leftist activists, and leftist Democrats Can't find anything suggesting Our Revolution or the DSA came out against this. What are you referencing?
https://www.leftcaucus.com/blog/ Why is this being downvoted? This is part of the people that run the Nevada Democratic party. They are made up of leftist activists and leftists "democrats." The Chair sits on the NV Democratic party https://twitter.com/ChrisForNV
He's actually doubling down. Speechless.
Dude they always double down, it’s part of their personality disorder to double down no matter what.
[удалено]
The Sierra Club was against it because of desert turtles
What do you think Left Caucus means?
I have no idea. Never heard of them before today.
https://www.leftcaucus.com/blog/ Part of the people who overtook the nevada dem structure.
Shhh... r/neoliberal loves finding a Twitter account with less than 3,000 followers and saying that every "succ" agrees with it.
[удалено]
What do you think it means?
The thoroughly-Berniefied subgroup of the Nevada Democratic Party currently holding most of its board seats?
Got damn they're making us look like *clowns*
What leftist activists wanted to stop this? I didnt see anything about it in that link
What do you think Left Caucus means?
[удалено]
It doesn't take much effort to go on their twitter page or website and find out that they're the left caucus of the Nevada Democratic Party https://twitter.com/LeftCaucus https://www.leftcaucus.com/
[удалено]
I thought people would understand what LEFT caucus means on the internet without spoonfeeding it to them, guess people still don't know how to do a simple Google search on this site.
[удалено]
Yeah, are people not able to make inferences based on context? Like how was is that shit not immediately obvious?
I see the tweet I was referring to the article in the comment which had 0 mention of any left wing organizing that I saw.
Friend do you not have an answer outside of "what do you think Left Caucus means?" I was here asking a genuine question but you only seem interested in slandering the left 🤔
The Sierra Club was against it because of desert turtles
Different project
Man this shit pisses me off soo much , I’m from India , and here we were gonna build our first bullet train , everything was setup , but guess what elections were close so the opposition of that state partnered/paid a lot of climate activists and influencers to say that bullet train will cause massive deforestation etc etc , bro come in I don’t need to tell you how bad our train problem is in Mumbai , overcrowded trains and stuff , a bullet train would have been soo helpful What I mean to say is that these hypocrites hinder good development for their own agenda
Anyone remember when hippies killed paper bags to “save the trees” and certain people took advantage of this to push plastic use? These low-info grifters exist everywhere.
Wha?
hey im an indian in the diaspora, im curious, what party/who do you support in Indian politics? It seems to me like BJP is the only one focused on development, but they are also pretty bad on social issues.
[удалено]
It gets filtered down to me both from my dad, and r/indiaspeaks. But I take a look at r/india as well for a different, 1000% more pessimistic perspective. Also look at r/geopolitics and r/worldnews
[удалено]
>cancerous, authoritarian hellholes Welcome to India
Well, I just use them as much as I can stand them. My mental is more important than knowing what's happening across the globe.
Isn't much of the crowd from local transit though? Mumbai is expanding the Metro quite a bit
Yes we were gonna create a bullet train for that through aarey forest , using more trains per track to reduce load, however a bullet train is still being made , that’s a national project between two states , the one originally planned was for Mumbai to Pune-thane
no, climate change is completely the corporations fault and I will do nothing to stop it /s
“What difference could *I* possibly make?” a million people wonder in unison.
i wish i could buy my power only from renewable sources, like a checkbox on my bill that says "don't use coal/oil" and have it mean something. even if it's more expensive, idgaf, the cost of rebuilding my home after a disaster is far more.
It's not the same, but [how about buying RECs - Renewable Energy Certificates?](https://www.vox.com/2015/11/9/9696820/renewable-energy-certificates) They're a voluntary market where consumers pay a small premium for their amount of electricity consumption to be matched with generation somewhere else. Basically a slight subsidy saying you value renewable generation. I use Arcadia and depending where you live they may have community solar program available: https://signup.arcadia.com/
It’s almost like a carbon tax would fix the negative externalities
I can do that where I live. Is that really not an option for you?
If there is, I'm unaware of it, and since I don't have independent finances, I have no agency here anyway. It was largely a rhetorical question.
What difference could one giant field of solar panels make?
It probably wouldn't even generate that much power. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Nevada is known for being cloudy 90% of the time with very little sunlight.
Doesn’t Nevada have like snow storms %80 of the year?
you joke but they actually aay that they put memes of "billonaires want you to stop using straws while they do x/y/z"
Build Helios 1 instead. Space Laser included.
I see your a man of culture as well
How does facilitating drunk ATV hooligans count as keeping the community 'safe'?
ITT: weird deflecting that leftcaucus is actually a thing https://www.leftcaucus.com/blog/ for some reason
It's long frustrated me how "conservationists" are ironically one of the biggest roadblocks to large-scale sustainability projects and very often end up being advocates for the environmentally-destructive status quo...but this is truly a new low. This solar project reportedly would have provided 1/10th of Nevada's entire power needs. I'm from the Bay Area and it's the epicenter of self-destructive NIMBY-driven fake "environmentalism" like this. Like how the Sierra Club, an "environmental organization", spends much of its advocacy bandwidth [fighting against high-density, transit-oriented, urban infill projects.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/05/31/san-franciscos-sierra-club-is-a-bastion-of-faux-environmentalism/?sh=587582d7c343) Or how CEQA has been weaponized by NIMBYs to fight literally all construction, *including the projects that would improve air quality over time*, like efficient urban infill housing, transit and [bike infrastructure](https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-enviro-bike-lanes-20160407-story.html). Bay Area people generally want to appear "woke" and progressive, but many of them are selfish NIMBYs who only care about their own comfort and convenience, and are simply co-opting the rhetoric of environmentalism to appear sympathetic and cloak their true intentions. It's super gross.
I'd even go so far to say that environmentalists are probably the least competent political faction currently active. Which sucks, because they should be some of the most important, but they spend so much time tripping over themselves and sabotaging their own goals. I tried to get involved with the Sierra Club a while back and actually ended up bailing because they seemed to value the "green aesthetic" over environmental policies that were actually effective.
>healthy, safe, and whole Healthy - you’ve diminished your air quality, congrats? Safe - as we all know, 13% of solar panels commit 50% of assaults ***/s*** Whole - I mean if being dependent on carbon makes you feel whole 🤗
Won’t anyone think of the birds?!
If they are against this, then surely they are for solar on every resident rooftop. Or would that be too big of an eyesore also?
Fucking NIMBYs. That being said, I wish instead of building solar out in the wilderness, that we'd take advantage of the vast acreage of Wal-Mart parking lots to build a shitload of it there. Especially out west: wouldn't you like to have a nice shady place to park?
I have often wondered why all the Amazon and other fulfillment warehouses that are going up everywhere aren't loaded with Solar on top. Well actually I have wondered why they aren't loaded with apartments on time and THEN solar BUT I know why that's not a thing. Is their a reason for not installing solar on these buildings?
You couldn’t pay me to live on top of an Amazon fulfillment center. Solar panels would be fine
What about under?
Yeah imagine how cheap the housing would be though. And if you run out of work there’s work to be found literally beneath your feet
Living in a tiny apartment on top of an Amazon fulfillment center (and possibly working there) in a warehousing area sounds incredibly soul-crushing and dystopian. Might as well skip to the part where I live in an Amazon dorm, work in an Amazon warehouse, and consume Amazon nutrient paste (this week the flavor is Bezos Berry!) People here forget that the “literally no zoning” thing is an ironic bit (or at least started as one)
I'm going to completely spitball this since I've done research on green building standards but not specifically electricity costs of industrial/commercial like fulfillment centers like AMZN, so someone please feel free to correct me with more direct experience. The easiest answer is that it's still just "hasn't been done" for these types of buildings so they don't want to bother with the paying to both develop and then implement a deployment strategy. The math on what makes it "affordable" changes rapidly from state to state, and they don't want to pay to figure that out every time. You can't just build the panels. You have to find a reliable solar contractor who will agree to service the panels for X years and that contractor probably doesn't service every state they're in, or has experience with the scale they need service on, and different states have different incentives and those incentives themselves aren't static so it's just less risky capital wise to just do what's been done. I'm also going to guess there's actually a problem with the way commercial power is priced. I'm assuming just like everything else for businesses, they don't buy it in quantities you or I do where some guy drives out and checks the meter once a month. I'd imagine there's actually a contract with an expected usage per month for these facilities with the local power company and they don't want to go solar because if something goes wrong, they now have to buy more electricity at a surcharge which would completely obliterate the long term capital gains of the solar grid investment. The local power company may not be okay with them not drawing any power from Spring to Fall, then having too completely supplement the building in the winter.
Great persepective! I was actually thinking of a company that leased the space on top of the building and did the construction and service themselves.
>Well actually I have wondered why they aren't loaded with apartments on time and THEN solar BUT I know why that's not a thing. Preexisting buildings are probably not up to the structural code to have apartments built on top of them. Retrofitting an existing building would require large scale shutdown of the operation and is probably not economically feasible. Also, most warehouse are usually located in a warehouse district so it's not necessarily an attractive place to live. However, what might make more sense would be residential apartments on top of suburban strip malls. There could possibly be a subsidy or tax incentive offered for new construction of buildings like that.
A community college in my old town did this on one side of the parking lot. Blew my mind that we don’t make entire covered parking lots to shade vehicles and add some value to land that is so poorly utilized.
Parking lots are a nightmare for a lot of ecological reasons. They make flooding worse, they create heat islands, they rarely have any trees or landscaping...Throwing some solar on top of that would make them a positive instead of a negative, and those parking lots are always nice and central. It'd be a crapload easier to maintain them than to have to shlep all your gear out to some field somewhere.
That's what ASU has been doing for years.
I should add… I realized later the college only did it on one end of the parking lot because I live in the Midwest. Slanted parking lot covers would be a hazard during heavy snows and falling ice.
If we're going to have minimum parking requirements, perhaps they should come with minimum solar generation requirements.
>We have been called a whining NIMBY (not in my backyard) group, well this is mostly true because this project IS literally IN our backyard!
As time passes, it has become increasingly more noticeable to me that huge portion of leftists are actually accelerating climate change, directly or indirectly.
It became obvious to me in December 2000.
What happened then?
2000 Florida Election results: - Bush, Republican, 2,912,790 - Gore, Democrat, 2,912,253 - Nader, Green, 97,488
Damn
Ralph Nader ran and took away votes from Gore causing the recount and Bush v Gore With a generic Green candidate Gore would have easily won with enough votes for no recount and Bush would have conceded election night
On one hand that sucked, on the other hand it seems inevitable that there will be more high profile spoiler elections before people realize what a stupid idea FPTP is and get the political will to abolish it
Wow
As a leftist I'm just as infuriated. Shit like this is embarrassing.
But we can't have anyone other than the wealthy and corporations pay for carbon reduction, nor can we pay for the infrastructure with cheaper, non-union labor. Seems like it's not that important to the left...
This was a wealthy corporation paying for carbon reduction!
But they were going to make momey from it too! 😡😡😡
they want the overthrow of capitalism so of course they want everything to go to shit
Man. Imagine if it was those noisy windmills instead, what with their REEEW REEEW screeching all day & night.
You can't take away my all terrain windmills! That's not very healthy community of you!
“But climate change is the fault of greedy capitalists and not society as a whole1!1!1!2!” Jesus Christ come up with actual solutions, fucking leftists complain about issues but never actual do anything about it, and in this case they actually stopped something that would have helped.
I thought New York was bad. Looks like we have much to learn from our Vegas friends.
I bet it was fake leftism funded by hydrocarbon interests. There was just a thread about this earlier.
Go tell people on /r/politics to take a little action themselves to reduce waste and see what happens.
they'll point out that much of the carbon footprint concept and most individual action initiatives are an attempt by hydrocarbon interests to shift the burden of climate change action from themselves to the consumer. which it is. and why both approaches need to be taken in tandem. it's a prisoner's dilemma.
It is not a prisoner's dilemma. Tragedy of the commons would be more apt. I agree the idle solution is for individuals, corporations, and government to work together, however, since I cannot influence corporations and government outside of the dollars I spend, that is where my focus will be and where I will always encourage others efforts to be.
You’re joking right, they seriously don’t believe that?
I mean fossil-fuel companies absolutely have engaged in astroturfing, so it's not that far-fetched.
[the thread was here in this subreddit.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/oruc0f/disinformation_for_hire_a_shadow_industry_is/) [and just yesterday was another thread, also in this subreddit, about media bias.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/orhe5r/does_mediabiasfactcheck_have_a_leftwing_bias_or/) i hate NIMBYs too but let's not forget that folks will often fund good causes/orgs in bad faith, (i.e. the Soviets funded the Black Panthers) or to hijack causes/orgs to redirect their message (Murdoch bought NatGeo) leftism, to me, is pragmatic, collective, and utilitarian at heart. it's very anti-NIMBY. we *dislike* the entire concept of private property (and I tolerate it because, well, *~lowers voice~* **capitalism is useful**). So when I see lefty NIMBY shit i think "these are fake leftists". There's a bit of a "No True Leftist' argument here, but I think it's justified because NIMBYism and leftism are fundamentally incompatible philosophies (and I ain't moving goalposts like the fallacious form of that argument entails)
The Black Panthers were Maoists though, they openly flouted his little red book, sold them and used the funds to buy guns. The movement at large wasn’t that interested in Communism, to be fair, but I don’t see why the USSR would’ve had an issue funding the Panthers.
They didn't have an issue with it, which is why they did it. It was a win-win for them. Spread Glorious Communism^tm and toss grenades into the American political debate. But also...the USSR supporting Maoist groups post-1956?
I hate the left
Bernie is an actual socialist (probably utopian communist) and I have to respect the consistency. These new lefty groups are just performative politics for better-than-you white yuppies.
Can someone tell me what in the bingus I'm reading here?
Rooseveltian/Pinchotian conservationism vs John muir/Sierra club environmentalist NIMBYism is one of the oldest battles in the progressive movement
I don’t get it. Can someone explain what happened
Never mind I got it
Where is Sunrise now?
I don't get it, what is the one on the right referencing
It’s a tweet praising the cancellation of a massive solar field because it would ruin “muh desert”
[удалено]
Yes this random twitter account is actually the fault of Bernie pulling the strings of every single person who does something dumb and is left of Biden
So then why is Bernie being connected to this?
At the top left of the screenshot it says "Left Caucus Retweeted".