I love solar but also love Small Modular Nukes.

As long as we still plan for automobile dependency and continue to use suburban planning models, and depend on a culture and economy based on endless consumption and growth, we're going to continue to ruin the environment.

That is all.

serve to dig a deeper problem while proponents make money, have influence in the present and shift or extend the problem of human consumption of natural resources and destruction of the natural world.

The sane approach is a long term, kind and managed reduction in human population and ecological footprint. Have severe doubts if possible.

This is a failure on Newsom’s part IMO.

if they're not??

Srsly it's "follow the money". Why would this project be approved??

Not to say that there aren't legitimate concerns (here and elsewhere) that shouldn't be factored - addressed if possible.

But NIMBY is something that simply has to be dealt with and worked through - if sustainable is to become a common and realistic goal. (And note also, the oh so familiar 'city folk' vs the always virtuous and innocent 'rural cousins' being preyed upon - that is once again trotted out to be used as a weepy headline ... Folks, we all need sustainable energy - and setting up antagonistic divisions doesn't serve to either educate or advance ... )

I live in Orange County but the whole Josuha Tree area is special to me.

and my post was more directed as a generalized comment about NIMBY and rural/urban clashes - rather than Joshua Tree per se. Whether or not this particular project goes forward (or indeed makes any sense) - the issue of almost knee jerk opposition to virtually any project still remains fundamental. Somehow, things need to be worked through and resolved, if we are to move forward.

From my limited observation, part of the NIMBY resistance comes from unfair, or perceived bias in implementation.

it is rarely the millionaires (or their properties) that are displaced or disadvantaged ...
Welcome to the real world ...

...form of energy as "sustainable." It's a common affectation to do so, a well pushed and advertised urban mythology that so called "renewable energy" is "sustainable," but despite it's multi- trillion dollar price tag is only accelerating the accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide.

In 20 to 25 years, if not destroyed by the extreme weather that is increasingly prevalent because solar and wind energy are useless in addressing the use of fossil fuels, all of these solar cells will be intractible electronic waste, and the Joshua Trees will have been destroyed for no reason.

Advocates of so called "renewable energy" are not environmentalists despite the "but her emails" media propaganda defining them as such; they are developers. This was true when John Muir fought them over a century ago, and it's true now.

with my personal perspective being that we never should have relinquished nuclear - and perhaps ought to be making our way back in that direction as quickly as possible. Alas ... Is that a realistic possibility in the society in which we currently reside? Talk about NIMBY, and other social divides!

What we have now that we didn't have in the "first nuclear era," when the United States built more than 100 nuclear reactors in about 25 years while providing some of the lowest electricity prices in the world, is lots of used nuclear fuel. This is a tremendous advantage.

Anything we do now with respect to nuclear energy will come in under the rubric of "too little too late." However, to the extent that anything can be saved, or more less likely, restored, nuclear energy is the best of all options.

allow and faster track alternative energy and other new projects.

For example, the proposed Sites Reservoir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sites_Reservoir

There is a large wind project planned off the coast of Humboldt Bay that I think is ill-conceived. One could say my reasons are NIMBY but that is wrong. Find your 2nd paragraph insulting and ignorant. Do not intend to make you an enemy. I am neither innocent nor virtuous.

If you are interested, will expound later.

According to wikipedia, it will impact the environment positively and negatively and seems to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. I'm surprised at its size and there doesn't seem to be any new engineering to mitigate evaporation. My misunderstanding, I hope.

I have lived both very rural, and (at least semi) urban. And I find the 'divide' to be hackneyed, contrived, ignorant (going both directions) - but most importantly, manipulative (and exploited).

Quite capable of expounding on those points ... But don't intend to. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What really sickens me, the reduced project only kills 3,500 trees, some 100 to 250 years old.

... lemme get this straight. Solar energy is supposed to be part of a grand plan to prevent the destruction of protected species, be they flora or fauna, right? But, just so a few sociopaths can make a buck at the expense of the environment that alternative energy is supposed to protect, corners were cut, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, under-the-table, back-room deals were made, and bald-faced lies were told to rationalize it all. It's hard to see how all this could happen any other way.

So, find a way to work around the trees, and preserve tortoise habitat. Y'all will still make a bundle, garner kudos for your efforts to preserve the environment, instead of killing what you're supposed to protect, and fewer people will lie awake nights thinking of ways to off your sorry asses. Win, win, right?

You're gonna want to keep a closer eye on this shit, Gavin. It'll cost you BIG time if you don't.