Oh the glorious, the amazing, the beautiful, the incredible ocean, down whose waves I rush, speeding across clear water I see seaweed, little fish, clean sandy bottom, until I arrive near the shore, steer my board to the left or right, slide off, and rush back out to do it all over again.
I have found a very deserted little back-road called Island Road, a cul-de-sac, 1.6 miles to the end and back, so if I run this twice it will be 5 km. I think I need to run on a real road if that is what the race will be on. It seemed, driving it today, like an awfully long way, just once, let alone running it twice! Tomorrow morning will be the test, and my stomach trembles at the thought.
Solar power, it's what we want, isn't it, renewable energy from the sun? Better than mining coal, better for the environment? Well, it's not so simple, actually. I listened to a programme on a planned large-scale (huge - thousands of acres) solar development in the Panoche Valley in California, with a semi-desert micro-climate. The company states that the solar panels will provide shade for grazing sheep and the panels will collect moisture for plant growth around them.
However, an Environmental Impact Assessment has recently been done on this land and evidence of many species has been found, including some endangered species. So now the residents of the valley are up in arms, protesting this development of 16 000 acres. And so there will be prolonged court cases etc., for years to come, and it may never get going.
I don't know which side I am on, because on the one hand I am for the animals and plants, the wild land, but on the other, I am for renewable energy, which I believe is the answer, or one of the answers, something that will go a small way to perhaps healing some of what we have done to the earth. The company, Solargen, has offered to buy up 12 000 acres of adjacent land so that all the animals can go there, but really, how does one accomplish that? By telling all the displaced animals, "Hey, look, just over that hill, there's another 12 000 acres just for you!"
Where I grew up, where we had that magical childhood, was in a Garden City called Pinelands, a place first envisaged by a man called Ebenezer Howard, who grew up during the Second Industrial Revolution in England, which began with the invention of steam-powered ships, trains and such. Studying the monotony, grime and ugliness of the industrial towns, he envisioned homes for people on the outskirts of these towns, which incorporated gardens and other green spaces. He wanted to replace tenements with homes standing on their own grounds, he believed that people would be better off if they maintained that important link with nature, so his idea would connect town and country.
In 1918, the Spanish Influenza pandemic raged through Cape Town and a Mr Richard Stutterford became interested in Howard's ideas, as he believed that the death toll could have been much lower with different housing. He put forth his idea to the govt of the time, and eventually, in 1919, he was given a pine plantation called Uitvlugt, which became the beautiful suburb of my childhood, where every street had a pretty name, none of which ended in "Street". The roads were called, "Pleasant Place", "Forest Drive", "North Way", "Serpentine" "The Bend". And everywhere there were open green leafy spaces. I played for hours in "The Field" behind my house, rode my bike down Union Ave to my friend's house, knew all the trees where you could find squirrels, all the best places to crack pine-nuts, took short-cuts through all the neighbours' gardens, roller-skated up and down Peak Drive, built dams in the gutters with my cousins in Camp Road.
A lovely story, but again, if more and more garden cities had been developed, a much larger portion of the country would be settled, so less arable land and less wild land for flora and fauna. Why do such good things always have to have a down side? (Not even to mention the worst of it, that this was all only for white people!) Jess looking pensive, which is how I feel tonight.
Thank you for your thoughtful insight.
ReplyDeleteI live and farm in Panoche Valley. There are many things about this beautiful, pristine grassland that Solargen doesn't want you to know.
The entire Panoche Valley is engaged in sustainable farming and ranching, primarily in the form of grazing. My husband and I produce beyond-organic eggs on pasture, there is a raw Jersey milk dairy, pork, lamb and beef being raised exclusively on pasture, and a heirloom organic vegetable farmer. All of us strive to be good stewards of the land, farming and ranching in harmony with the diverse range of wildlife around us.
As a result of all the grazing operations, the majority of the valley is pristine, open-space. We utilize the natural forage and use minimal irrigation where necessary. We're producing food and selling it locally, and the grassland is sequestering huge amounts of carbon.
Solargen wants the valley because land is relatively cheap. Our county is small and poor so I think the Wall Street venture capitalist that started the company thought it would be easy to get the project approved.
With no new tax revenue (solar startups are exempt), reduction of labor (all of the farms and ranches in the valley will be pushed out if the project is approved), loss of prime ag land and precious biological resources (there is an extensive range of threatened and endangered species that live on the valley floor), the county will come out on the losing end of this proposition.
But, all of this is completely unecessary.
There is 30,000 acres of retired farmland in the adjacent county that has been identified as an ideal solar location, (Westlands CREZ in Fresno County). It is unusable due to selenium buildup and is habitat for only the most common species, (rabbits, squirrels, etc.). With Westlands and the development of available rooftop space, California could meet the 33% mandate for renewable energy production set forth by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Rooftop/distributed solar is being downplayed by utility-scale solar producers because big solar = big energy. They want to hold on to their energy production monopoly at all cost by keeping power production out of the hands of the general populace. Not only that, they want the millions of dollars of federal stimulus money (ARRA funds) currently available. Solargen stands to gain $360 million if their project is approved by December 2010.
That money, meant to stimulate the American economy, is already slated to purchase 4 million solar panels from China - bypassing the American market altogether.
Solargen Energy Inc. are classic greenwashers, promoting their project as "clean" energy while the truth is something completely different. They say their project will help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil but the tradeoff is the loss of 4,885 acres of prime ag land that is biologically sensitive & increased foreign food dependence. Does one trump the other? Why even ask when other alternatives are available?
Definitely not a simple subject. Thank you for starting the debate.
Kim Williams
Your Family Farm
Panoche Valley
CA 95043