Gregory's ServerAnd also...
“the land required for solar panels alone to provide all global energy is … less than the current land footprint of fossil fuel infrastructure”.
Amazing.
Oh and also, also...
“But as far as sheep grazing goes, solar is really good.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/13/farmers-who-graze-sheep-under-solar-panels-say-it-improves-productivity-so-why-dont-we-do-it-more
|
Top-level
 9 comments
  @mackayim2022 You could make the argument that you should include land used to grow corn for ethanol production in the US in the fossil fuel footprint ... but that almost makes things too easy. Well yes, but good farmland wouldn't be my first choice. Arguaably better to let it go fallow and reforest as a carbon sink and put your solar panels on our copious deserts and badlands. @pieist @mackayim2022 100% agree but in the absence of sane land use regulation ... 10+ acre solar arrays are going up all over in Minnesota, and from a wildlife point of view 10 acres with a fence around it and racks of panels, with mowing a couple times a year is way more habitat than 10 acres of corn monoculture sprayed down with Monsanto's finest. Sometimes farmland actually benefits from solar panels. In sunny and dry areas, providing shade can improve crop yields and/or reduce the need for watering.  @mackayim2022 For a lot of current and ex farmers, putting solar panels on their land is a good income stream. It's absolutely not anti-farmer. @justafrog @mackayim2022 It’s not anti-sheep, either. Some places it really helps them. |
@mackayim2022 Another one of those specious arguments that make me 🤦♂️.
“Oh the environment” from those who quite happily endorse destruction of it by the fossil fuel industry.