It’s been a while since we’ve had this much buzz about something that has nothing to do with Donald Trump: Dozens of readers wrote letters to the editor expressing concern about the construction of a solar power project in the Mojave Desert. Melody Petersen of The Times – that would require the destruction of 3,500 Joshua trees.
This is understandable. Joshua trees mark the desert southwest in a way that perhaps only the saguaro can match. Plants that exist in a certain elevation window of the Mojave Desert—a window that is closing due to climate change—serve as a sort of unmistakable natural boundary between metropolitan Los Angeles and the high desert. Who doesn’t notice the first Joshua tree they see on the way out of LA at Cajon Pass or on Highway 14?
But we’ve come far enough on climate change that we now have to consider trade-offs, and this is one of them. Humanity needs to reduce carbon emissions, solar power is helping us get there, and there are few better places to generate solar power than the sun-drenched Mojave Desert. Readers pleading for the survival of Joshua trees increasingly suggest alternatives such as urban rooftop solar and conservation.
This is not the first environmental trade-off in the fight against climate change. I hope the Joshua tree doesn’t end up alongside the grizzly bear, the symbol of a decimated California.
————
To the Editor: The photo of a 150-200 year old Joshua tree with your article on the Aratina Solar Project made my throat catch.
Why aren’t the 180,000 homes that will receive power in coastal neighborhoods getting solar on their roofs? I have solar on my roof and it doesn’t detract from the beauty of my house. Why are endangered Joshua trees and endangered desert tortoises sacrificed so far away for homes?
The well-being of citizens in Bor and neighboring small towns will also be sacrificed for the benefit of wealthy neighborhoods. Why is the detection of poisonous fungi in the soil ignored?
This is not “saving the planet”. I believe in expanding renewable energy sources, but the quick fix – bulldozing and clearing a large tract of land for households – is lazy and thoughtless.
Rooftop solar is the answer.
Starflower Thomson, Joshua Tree, California.
..
To the Editor: Most environmentalists in the desert Southwest knew from the start that this “save the planet” ethic would only go as far as NIMBYISM and corporate greed would allow it.
An environmentalist horrified by deforestation in the Northeast would be less impressed by the massive destruction of cactus habitat in the California desert.
An environmentally concerned resident of grizzly bear country isn’t going to be apoplectic about eliminating rattlesnake or turtle habitats in Arizona.
Most Americans view the desert as a wasteland. Do you think they built and tested nuclear weapons in New Mexico?
It is immoral to destroy Joshua trees to serve the greater good. It is a failure to recognize that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is not protecting the public and that we have too many developed (and therefore destroyed) residential properties in urban areas that are not primarily used for energy production.
We need to promote rooftop solar so that homeowners and others can afford the cost of installing solar. Why exactly does the CPUC exist?
Denis Arcurius, Indian
..
To the editor: Joshua trees, indeed most trees, are worth saving. Desert animals too.
But let’s be clear: if we hope to slow and eventually stop global warming, we must stop burning fossil fuels and switch to clean, renewable energy generated by wind, water and the sun.
Building solar farms wherever possible is not about killing trees or desert creatures, it’s about saving people. The planet will survive global warming; will not be human.
Fortunately, scientists at Stanford University have created renewable energy roadmaps for all 50 states and, to date, more than 150 other countries. It’s time to embrace clean energy infrastructure, not oppose it.
Court Casady, Palos Verdes Peninsula
..
To the editor: I don’t think destroying natural habitats to provide people with electricity is a good trade-off. Conservation may be another way forward.
Joshua trees and desert dwellers (including humans) have a right to exist. Plus, over time, we humans (8 billion people) can miss out on what else our lovely planet has to offer.
John Muir had much to say about the importance of the wilderness to the human spirit. For example:
“We have fought and are still fighting because forests are part of the eternal conflict between right and wrong, and we cannot wait to see the end of it. … So we must trust to watch these trees and strive for them, and always be glad to find something good and noble.”
Erica Hahn, Monrovia
..
To the Editor: When you drive around Scotland and Germany, two of the sunniest places on the planet, it’s almost shocking to see the ubiquity of rooftop solar installations. How is this possible?
They take climate mitigation personally. California obviously isn’t.
Here in sunny California, where thousands of acres of rooftops are waiting to be turned to the sun, private capital has the right to destroy a pristine wilderness with only endangered plants and animals and powerless poor people as neighbors.
A private equity developer is going to build this massive solar facility to serve the rich coastal areas, and we’re letting it happen? What is the business of this state?
Until the solar potential of every rooftop is exhausted, no more massive solar projects should be built where energy is needed.
Sarah R. Nichols, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: As the late Huell Howser explained years ago, it’s not just the Joshua tree that’s endangered, but the habitat it provides for desert-dwelling reptiles, insects, birds and small mammals.
Is it impossible to find another location for the proposed solar plant? We need clean energy, but Joshua trees take many years to grow and reproduce.
If there were only a few trees, this might be acceptable – but the destruction of thousands seems like a crime.
Kathleen Trinity, Acton
..
To the editor: Members of the Kern County Board of Supervisors should be ashamed of themselves and vote out of office to approve a for-profit project that would destroy old-growth Joshua trees and protected wildlife habitat.
Who is the private equity firm building the factory to claim that its benefits outweigh this terrible affront to our natural resources? The fact that he plans to cut trees in the area to avoid visibility and backlash proves the nefarious nature of this project.
This type of development should not be part of California’s clean energy path and the project should be stopped immediately.
Peter Fennema, West Los Angeles