ExclusiveHuge Plan To Transform Rural America #frontpageshow #frontpageexclusive

Recently, the Biden administration proposed designating millions of acres of public lands as potential sites for industrial scale solar farms. That area is larger than 36 of the states. It's similar to the size of Idaho or Minnesota. There are six alternatives to solar development proposed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management is a division of the Department of the Interior. In the most aggressive of these alternatives, 55 million acres across 11 western states would be made available for solar energy. If 8 million acres were to be made available, this would be the least aggressive of these alternatives. The Bureau of Land Management's preferred alternative lies in the middle between the two, setting aside 22 million acres for solar development. In total, the Bureau of Land Management manages 162 million acres of public lands that are designated as multi-use. This public land has multiple uses. This includes farming, ranching, hunting and fishing, hiking and camping, drilling, mining, and most recently, wind and solar installations and transmission lines. The Biden administration aims to generate 25 gigawatts of electricity from wind and solar on public lands by 2025, and it plans to generate 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035. The Bureau of Land Management states that in order to achieve these goals, solar panels would need to be sited on 700,000 acres of public land. According to the Department of Energy, more than 3 million solar panels are required to produce 1 gigawatt of electricity, and they want to generate 25 gigawatts. One gigawatt can power 500,000 to 750,000 homes on average when electricity is generated and used continuously. The states targeted for solar development include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Not surprisingly, the environmental groups and advocates for wind and solar energy applauded the plan. However, the sheer scope of the Bureau of Land Management's plan is a red flag for many communities. Dylan Hoyt, who is the planning program manager in the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, calls the plan bad optics. Hoyt said, When I say bad optics, I mean when you tell me that I have 17,000 acres in Utah that's set aside for solar, and now we're going to jump to 3.7 or 1.5 million? That looks terrible. The critics of the Bureau of Land Management's solar plan say, despite assurances from environmental groups, they remain concerned about the scale of this government development project. They are also concerned about the amount of land that it would consume. Gabriela Hoffman, a policy analyst and host of the District of Conservation podcast, noted by saying, They say we have to protect the environment, but they're okay with destroying the environment to save it. It makes no sense if you are a conservationist. A report by the Nature Conservancy that was published in May of 2023 stated that reaching the goal of net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 by using wind and solar would require more than 160 million acres of land. This is an area about the size of Texas. Those in the path of wind and solar industries believe this is too expensive for an uncertain benefit. Robert Bryce keeps a database of more than 600 local communities that have opposed wind and solar projects nationwide. Bryce remarked, This idea that we can save the environment by carpeting the rural landscape with oceans of solar panels and forests of wind turbines, it boggles the mind how climate activists can justify this. Some states like Michigan are writing new laws in order to prevent their communities from blocking wind and solar projects. By doing so, they hope to curtail local resistance. However, some western states still expect significant pushback against the Bureau of Land Management Plan. Hoyt believes that the plan will definitely impact wildlife. It will impact not only species that live in the designated solar zones, but it will also impact those that migrate through them. Hoyt noted, There's definitely going to be conflict with ranchers as well. There could be conflicts with access to public lands depending on where it's built and there could be potential conflict with the mining industry. This didn't really have a say in the goals in the first place, which I think is disconcerting because the states represent the citizens. One of the prime targets for solar development is Nevada. This is because of the amount of sunlight that Nevada receives. Nevada is also close to California, which consumes more electricity than Nevada. The federal government owns 85% of Nevada's land. The majority of this land is desert. It's believed that there's no wildlife in the area, but residents dispute this claim. The residents are still concerned about the sheer scale of the Bureau of Land Management Plan. Andy Reiber, a public lands consultant in Nevada, said, Nevada is a hard rock mining country, but the average footprint in Nevada for mining disturbances is less than 1,000 acres. Looking at the proposed solar developments in the state of Nevada, there are a few small ones, but most of them are running around 4,000 to 5,000 acres. There's one standout project that is a complex of seven contiguous facilities that would encompass approximately 62,000 acres, which is a lot of land. Of course, many climate activists would not shed a tear if mining, drilling, and cattle farming disappeared. However, local communities rely on them for food, energy, and jobs. Hoyt said, With the oil and gas industry, there's a royalty on everything that comes out of the ground and a percentage of that ends up going back to the counties. With solar, that doesn't exist. Hoyt believes that those companies come in, build on federal lands, and pay a permit fee to the Bureau of Land Management. Yet the local economy receives nothing. Even though the Bureau of Land Management initiative includes environmental justice as a guiding principle, people in targeted states worry that poor rural communities will feel the impact of solar development. This is while the electricity produced will be delivered to wealthier urban centers in states such as California. Hoyt explained, Yes, we need to be considerate of environmental impacts, but at the same time, we're coming in and we're putting a huge transition line and a solar field. And then when it's done, these people still have it there, have to look at it and live with it, but they get nothing from it. It's also important to note that using multi-use public lands for solar energy crowds out other uses. Reiber remarked, If you have a grazing allotment, a lot of things can go on in and around that, including recreation, even mining. But a large solar installation is going to take a big chunk of land out of multi-use circulation because you can't do anything else with it. It's a singular use.