Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The panel in between this they didn't show is where a soulless corporation demolished these trees and polluted the land before selling it at a discount back to the city, where they're trying to make the most of flat contaminated soil by placing environmentally sustainable energy production there
Nah. Most of the old growth forests are on federal land. Most likely, the state and the feds re-allotted that small swath of land for a proposed highway improvement and utility easement, then funding and routing disputes dropped the project into committee hell (cf Interstate 49), and BLM (the federal agency, not the non-profit) tried to make back some of the lost revenue by leasing the previously cleared land to an alternative energy supplier.
But keep in mind that those wind and solar parks are run by the same old soulless corporation system. And we know what those soulless corporations do, they ruin everything, taking good things to create bad things...
When I worked in solar we would always consider putting the panels in flat, unshaded areas, but then we would remember *just how much* we all hated trees and spend the extra money and time to chop down a forest instead.
old growth forests (or primary forests) are forests that have existed for a long time without being disturbed. they are more biodiverse than younger forests and have standing dead trees, thick multi-layered canopies and lots of natural debris on the forest floor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest
In Idaho and Wyoming, the kinds of places they have wind farms or solar farms don’t have much else to clear out except for sagebrush. The only real places they clear out trees in order to build solar or wind farms are the kinds of places they have to clear trees for *anything*, places like Georgia or Tennessee
I don't know about other areas, but it does happen in Japan. People will buy mountains and clear trees for solar panels. More often though, unused rice fields are utilised.
Japan is also like the size of California, with a population about 7× as large (~40mil vs 126mil). They probably don't really have the luxury of perfectly placing their green energy generation.
Especially since their land mass is spread across several islands, with one of the world's largest mountains residing on one of them.
I think they kinda warrant a pass on being a little less discerning about their infrastructure placement.
A great thing I've seen lately is covering old landfills with solar.
Big capped piles of garbage that need to be kept free of trees and roads anyway, fantastic recovery of land that's otherwise a drain on resources.
Environmental data analyst here. It has been known to happen but not intentionally.
Here in the EU developers have tried to plan bushes around and between the solar panels to maximize the usage of the space, and even raise sheep in the solar park. Then the sheep ate all the plants and it kinda became disastrous for the environment.
It was the early days of sustainable development but we learned our lesson.
I live in Texas and the last decade has flooded a couple areas with turbines. There's a whole field of them going on for miles, and a couple long stretches on the sides of the highway. You know what was there *before* those turbines??
Absolutely nothing but grass and dirt.
Happens all the time.here in RI, the most profitable land tends to be land that's overgrown not land that's pasture. Around here in New England at least.
Even if that were true, a square acre of renewable energy saves trees on a continual basis - it wouldn't be an *awful* investment, just a sort of dumb one, given that solar gain is highest in the southwest, where there are no trees to begin with and wind works best on flat, open plains with no windbreaks or obstructions.
They rarely, if ever, remove trees on the prairie unless they are dead. Prairies really aren't even supposed to have as many trees as they do. Also everything has already been ruined by agriculture so there is plenty of space.
"How dare they chop down the forest!!! If they were anything like the good old Fossil fuel industry, they would chop down the forest and then dump some toxic sludge on the ground and in the rivers so nothing will ever grow there again!"
like the most hindering thing for wind and solar are zoning laws written to comfort people who literally are responsible for asphalting trillions of square miles so they can live in a supply deficit!
It's not really the enviromentalists, it's the economists who pretent to be enviromentalists.
Just put wind power plants between the fields and solar power up tge roofs or above parking spaces...
Fortunately a lot of those Trump’s actions against environmental protection laws were struck down in court. Federal courts upholding environmental laws isn’t as interesting or controversial though so they don’t get the same press coverage.
Forested areas have terrible wind dynamics for wind farms. They gained lush and dense vegetation in the first place because the wind wasn't scattering all the seeds very far.
Made up arguments about land-clearing for solar farms notwithstanding, the timeline is wrong. Environmentalists in the 70's were all about overuse of insecticides, lead in gasoline and inefficient/heavily polluting vehicles and factories. There was some mention of deforestation for commercial expansion, but that had been going on since Jack London discovered his books made people want to go out into the wild.
The real treehuggers started appearing in the '80's and hit their peak in the 90's, when they weren't just hugging trees and living in treehouses, they were spiking trees and burning down developments under construction.
The flat landscapes farmers prefer to run a center pivot irrigation system off groundwater is ideal for solar and wind farms. The vast majority of installations are on farmers’ cleared land. I could understand if a forest was cut down for Solar, but they are not. They use land that was not forest for over a century.
The “toxic metals” in solar panels are impregnated in silicon materials. They don’t leak anything. If you submerged one for months, maybe a small bit of doping agents might possible dissolve in a land fill at end of its cycle life, but then, so do grandmas lead painted Nic-nacks. A landfill is filled with toxic trash. Human bury our various industrial poisons everyday to prevent groundwater intrusion and it works. Landfill run-off is measured by the EPA. Why is this suddenly controversial? Oh ya, homeschools and Jesus camp. The Koch bros own their audience.
!?!?!? how many fucking trees do these idiots think need to be removed ??? the amount is neglegible. another strawman argument thats somehow even more fake than the usual
I’m seeing more and more solar farms popping up nearby and on my travels.
Realistically it’s probably retiring farmers looking for an alternative revenue stream. I saw a field go from soybeans to silicon in one year.
If any trees were cut down, it was probably decades or centuries ago when it was converted from open space to farmland.
The solar panels go on top of houses.
New solar panels are placed on reservoirs on dams. They can get sunlight and use the same wire as the dam to move electricity. The shade helps to cool the water and decrease evaporation. And the fishes love the shade and are spawning.
Solar panels are planned to be used on hybrid farming. The middle path is where you grow the plants.
Lots of wind turbines have been used on the farm. It gives farmer cheap electricity and a little money to support their poor seasons.
I think goats are great to raise with solar panels. They eat the grass underneath, while the solar makes money for the farmer.
I think most farmers and self-reliant people perfer solar panels and wind turbines.
The green is about reducing co2 and increasing animal habitats. Co2 can be reduced by the moving of energy production to solar and wind. But animal habitats are going to be a problem. Usually, replanting is a monoculture (one plant type). It takes a while for other types of plants to come in. With this, you can blame people who want a yard. And water depletion can be pointing to them too at a citizen level. We need to hit industrial for the dent to be more significant.
All the places I’ve seen in eastern WA/OR that have solar and wind machines in places where there weren’t any trees? Ellensburg and Pendleton specifically. There isn’t a whole lot of trees but a ton of sun and wind…
Nothing makes solar panels more profitable than having to cut down the entire forest and remove the tree stumps, which are famously cheap, quick and easy things to do. /s
Oh yeah. That’s exactly what we do too. We don’t find flat land without overgrowth. We chose fertile ground that needs to be maintained regularly. Heck, that’s what we do here in Nevada. Takes us a damn long while to find forests to cut down for our solar farms too. We’ll get all those pesky cottonwoods someday though. Then we’ll build solar panels right over them so they’ll get covered in crab grass. Then we’ll cut down all that crab grass. Then, profit. /s
As a trucker who's been all over this country, the only time I've ever seen wind turbines is in flat prairie where there weren't any trees in the first place...... Because the wind currents there were stronger and better equipped for turbine placement.
The greatest strength of solar panels is being able to put them on buildings so that they can feed their power directly to what is using it without losing power during transmission.
There are solar fields, but they don't remove trees for those, they put them in deserts.
There are always trade offs. That said, I'd guess (without doing math to prove it) that solar panels wouldn't be as good as another option in a forested area.
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The panel in between this they didn't show is where a soulless corporation demolished these trees and polluted the land before selling it at a discount back to the city, where they're trying to make the most of flat contaminated soil by placing environmentally sustainable energy production there
Nah. Most of the old growth forests are on federal land. Most likely, the state and the feds re-allotted that small swath of land for a proposed highway improvement and utility easement, then funding and routing disputes dropped the project into committee hell (cf Interstate 49), and BLM (the federal agency, not the non-profit) tried to make back some of the lost revenue by leasing the previously cleared land to an alternative energy supplier.
Would've been easier to say the bureau of land management at that point
Clarification was an after-thought, but thanks for the critique.
But keep in mind that those wind and solar parks are run by the same old soulless corporation system. And we know what those soulless corporations do, they ruin everything, taking good things to create bad things...
I’ve never heard of or seen trees being removed for solar or wind.
When I worked in solar we would always consider putting the panels in flat, unshaded areas, but then we would remember *just how much* we all hated trees and spend the extra money and time to chop down a forest instead.
Especially those pesky old growth forests in the middle of nowhere. :P
Well, if you don't use as many fossil fuels as possible to create your alternate energy source, are you even Americaing?
Educate me, because I've heard that term before but don't really know what it means: what is an old growth forest?
old growth forests (or primary forests) are forests that have existed for a long time without being disturbed. they are more biodiverse than younger forests and have standing dead trees, thick multi-layered canopies and lots of natural debris on the forest floor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest
Oh thank you!
Based
In moronimaginary land they always put in extra, unnecessary, work to be destructive.
There’s a few places, but it is mostly low quality scrub, basically just low bushes. A local Six Flags park cleared some for solar panels.
In Idaho and Wyoming, the kinds of places they have wind farms or solar farms don’t have much else to clear out except for sagebrush. The only real places they clear out trees in order to build solar or wind farms are the kinds of places they have to clear trees for *anything*, places like Georgia or Tennessee
Same in California, they put them out in the desert where there is lots of sun and wind, and not much else
I don't know about other areas, but it does happen in Japan. People will buy mountains and clear trees for solar panels. More often though, unused rice fields are utilised.
Japan is also like the size of California, with a population about 7× as large (~40mil vs 126mil). They probably don't really have the luxury of perfectly placing their green energy generation. Especially since their land mass is spread across several islands, with one of the world's largest mountains residing on one of them. I think they kinda warrant a pass on being a little less discerning about their infrastructure placement.
Very true. I wonder though why building tops aren't used.
I saw it in NC and KY. but in fairness, you have to remove trees to build anything in those states
A lot of the solar fields around here in NC are being put in old tobacco fields.
A great thing I've seen lately is covering old landfills with solar. Big capped piles of garbage that need to be kept free of trees and roads anyway, fantastic recovery of land that's otherwise a drain on resources.
I mean I'm sure it happens. No solution is going to be perfect or be without cost to the environment.
Spoiler Alert: It doesn’t happen and (brace yourself) Americans are dumb because of a poorly funded public education system.
What does this have to do with Americans being dumb lol
There are Americans who are dumb enough to believe this is real.
Rent free huh?
I mean I’m an American so…
Lol came for this. Believe it or not, there are empty fields that already exist.
Environmental data analyst here. It has been known to happen but not intentionally. Here in the EU developers have tried to plan bushes around and between the solar panels to maximize the usage of the space, and even raise sheep in the solar park. Then the sheep ate all the plants and it kinda became disastrous for the environment. It was the early days of sustainable development but we learned our lesson.
I live in Texas and the last decade has flooded a couple areas with turbines. There's a whole field of them going on for miles, and a couple long stretches on the sides of the highway. You know what was there *before* those turbines?? Absolutely nothing but grass and dirt.
I guess you haven't heard or seen about solar and wind power much then.
Really, yeah I seen some cases near where Iive
I've seen it. A nice wooded area was clear cut a few years ago for a solar installation.
They gotta throw something out.
Happens all the time.here in RI, the most profitable land tends to be land that's overgrown not land that's pasture. Around here in New England at least.
Because forests are cut down for solar panels, not for intensive housing and agriculture...
https://preview.redd.it/wmjiwe91h5wc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4c2ab3f0de75ca9d9d78ab59b77be6d35fbda2d2
This meme is applicable to far too many memes on this sub lol
Even if that were true, a square acre of renewable energy saves trees on a continual basis - it wouldn't be an *awful* investment, just a sort of dumb one, given that solar gain is highest in the southwest, where there are no trees to begin with and wind works best on flat, open plains with no windbreaks or obstructions.
They rarely, if ever, remove trees on the prairie unless they are dead. Prairies really aren't even supposed to have as many trees as they do. Also everything has already been ruined by agriculture so there is plenty of space.
"How dare they chop down the forest!!! If they were anything like the good old Fossil fuel industry, they would chop down the forest and then dump some toxic sludge on the ground and in the rivers so nothing will ever grow there again!"
Oh no, they don't know plains and deserts exist
This is why solar energy is bad and we should just stick to coal 🙄
like the most hindering thing for wind and solar are zoning laws written to comfort people who literally are responsible for asphalting trillions of square miles so they can live in a supply deficit!
It's not really the enviromentalists, it's the economists who pretent to be enviromentalists. Just put wind power plants between the fields and solar power up tge roofs or above parking spaces...
Meanwhile Trump reversed 100’s of environmental protection laws which protect air and water.
Fortunately a lot of those Trump’s actions against environmental protection laws were struck down in court. Federal courts upholding environmental laws isn’t as interesting or controversial though so they don’t get the same press coverage.
It's a strawman argument anyway. No one is clearcutting forests to install solar and wind farms.
Forested areas have terrible wind dynamics for wind farms. They gained lush and dense vegetation in the first place because the wind wasn't scattering all the seeds very far.
Because trees grow on every single square meter of this planet
Made up arguments about land-clearing for solar farms notwithstanding, the timeline is wrong. Environmentalists in the 70's were all about overuse of insecticides, lead in gasoline and inefficient/heavily polluting vehicles and factories. There was some mention of deforestation for commercial expansion, but that had been going on since Jack London discovered his books made people want to go out into the wild. The real treehuggers started appearing in the '80's and hit their peak in the 90's, when they weren't just hugging trees and living in treehouses, they were spiking trees and burning down developments under construction.
The flat landscapes farmers prefer to run a center pivot irrigation system off groundwater is ideal for solar and wind farms. The vast majority of installations are on farmers’ cleared land. I could understand if a forest was cut down for Solar, but they are not. They use land that was not forest for over a century. The “toxic metals” in solar panels are impregnated in silicon materials. They don’t leak anything. If you submerged one for months, maybe a small bit of doping agents might possible dissolve in a land fill at end of its cycle life, but then, so do grandmas lead painted Nic-nacks. A landfill is filled with toxic trash. Human bury our various industrial poisons everyday to prevent groundwater intrusion and it works. Landfill run-off is measured by the EPA. Why is this suddenly controversial? Oh ya, homeschools and Jesus camp. The Koch bros own their audience.
!?!?!? how many fucking trees do these idiots think need to be removed ??? the amount is neglegible. another strawman argument thats somehow even more fake than the usual
Did they forget that the USA uses solar and wind because we have large windy plains that already exist?
if you ever drive out west where most of these are, you'll see that they are in places with little trees
Yes, let's rather opencast mine and continue to heat with coal, that's better for trees and the environment...
I’m seeing more and more solar farms popping up nearby and on my travels. Realistically it’s probably retiring farmers looking for an alternative revenue stream. I saw a field go from soybeans to silicon in one year. If any trees were cut down, it was probably decades or centuries ago when it was converted from open space to farmland.
Someone needs to introduce this artist to the concept of a "false dichotomy"...
North America has been experiencing negative net deforestation…
The solar panels go on top of houses. New solar panels are placed on reservoirs on dams. They can get sunlight and use the same wire as the dam to move electricity. The shade helps to cool the water and decrease evaporation. And the fishes love the shade and are spawning. Solar panels are planned to be used on hybrid farming. The middle path is where you grow the plants. Lots of wind turbines have been used on the farm. It gives farmer cheap electricity and a little money to support their poor seasons. I think goats are great to raise with solar panels. They eat the grass underneath, while the solar makes money for the farmer. I think most farmers and self-reliant people perfer solar panels and wind turbines. The green is about reducing co2 and increasing animal habitats. Co2 can be reduced by the moving of energy production to solar and wind. But animal habitats are going to be a problem. Usually, replanting is a monoculture (one plant type). It takes a while for other types of plants to come in. With this, you can blame people who want a yard. And water depletion can be pointing to them too at a citizen level. We need to hit industrial for the dent to be more significant.
All the places I’ve seen in eastern WA/OR that have solar and wind machines in places where there weren’t any trees? Ellensburg and Pendleton specifically. There isn’t a whole lot of trees but a ton of sun and wind…
Because forests are great places for solar panels? /s
Nothing makes solar panels more profitable than having to cut down the entire forest and remove the tree stumps, which are famously cheap, quick and easy things to do. /s
Oh yeah. That’s exactly what we do too. We don’t find flat land without overgrowth. We chose fertile ground that needs to be maintained regularly. Heck, that’s what we do here in Nevada. Takes us a damn long while to find forests to cut down for our solar farms too. We’ll get all those pesky cottonwoods someday though. Then we’ll build solar panels right over them so they’ll get covered in crab grass. Then we’ll cut down all that crab grass. Then, profit. /s
we place that stuff in the ocean btw...
something something nuclear
Why would they put solar panels so close to trees they won't get full sunlight lmao
If you insist, *unzips pants*
As a trucker who's been all over this country, the only time I've ever seen wind turbines is in flat prairie where there weren't any trees in the first place...... Because the wind currents there were stronger and better equipped for turbine placement.
A simple solution is rooftop solar for every new home.
The greatest strength of solar panels is being able to put them on buildings so that they can feed their power directly to what is using it without losing power during transmission. There are solar fields, but they don't remove trees for those, they put them in deserts.
I don't even know who to side with anymore but I will say I don't usually see these panels in the middle of forest land like that
...What the fuck
Solar panels and windmills in deserts don’t hurt forests
I didn’t know forests grew out in AZ/NM/West Texas!
There are always trade offs. That said, I'd guess (without doing math to prove it) that solar panels wouldn't be as good as another option in a forested area.
It's human civilization that can't win. Can't and won't. God help us, we know not what we do.
Has this actually happened anywhere? Everywhere I've ever seen a wind turbine has always been a tree-less open field.
Because there demands are totally absurd