by ritter » Wed 20 Oct 2010, 15:08:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')1. God ritter -- your potty mouth is overflowing---flush quick!
2. You don't understand that environmental groups can STOP almost any development by filing a series of lawsuits that can take years to go through the courts. Where are the LAWSUITS from Sierra Club and other environmental groups that pay flocks of lawyers to sue to protect the environment? Follow the money---the environmentalist aren't putting up the money to pay the lawyers to delay the solar project and protect the desert tortoise habitat? And why isn't the government shutting down the solar power plant to protect the desert tortoise habitat when it was such a big issue when it was a mine destroying tortoise habitat? Why is the government actually HELPING the destruction of the desert tortoise habitat?
3. Perhaps Obama has driven you insane, since your post rather missed the point that the only US rare earth's mine was shut down by the government in 2002 because, as Greenachers noted above, the mine was damaging the precious desert tortoise habitat, but the same government is now actively assisting in destroying the same desert tortoise habitat in the same biome in the same desert in 2010 to enable construction of a solar power plant and environmentalists haven't filed lawsuits to stop the groovy solar power plant.
1. Potty mouth. Good one.
2. Actually, I am painfully aware of the use of lawsuits to stop projects. I'm intimately familiar with environmental review of projects under CEQA, the California equivalent of NEPA. Here's a little reading for you to educate yourself on the environmental review process for this project (if you care to):
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/index.htmlThe California Energy Commission made its final determination (approval) September 22. I'm not sure about the laws under certified regulatory programs, but under typical CEQA review, there's still a few days to file a lawsuit on the decision. They typically aren't filed until the last day of the 30-day statute of limitation to ensure maximum project delays. We'll see.
According to this article, the Sierra Club's not stoked on the project with respect to its impacts on wildlife:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/brightsource-alters-solar-plant-plan-to-address-concerns-over-desert-tortoise/And here's government attempting to facilitate renewable energy and turtle longevity:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b3a780d4-5056-8059-7606-3936a2f7945f3. Got the point, thanks. Perhaps you missed pstarr's point above. There is a difference between radioactive contamination and a solar project (i.e., they aren't the same thing). I'm guessing if you read the NEPA documents on both projects, you'd find that the people that prepared them and the technical studies that supported the preparation reached similar conclusions.