Those Who Claim to Care About the Environment Are Killing It With Their Pseudo-Science

Isn’t the purpose of preserving our environment to sustain life, all life at its highest potential? Simple enough. “Follow the science,” we’re told. But too often what’s being sold as science is a selective, confirmation-biased story that skips critical steps: full lifecycle accounting, site-specific ecology, and honest engagement with trade-offs. When policies are pushed on slogans instead of comprehensive evidence, the result can be environmental harm wrapped in a green ribbon.

Take large, ground-mounted solar in New York State. On paper it sounds elegant: capture sunlight, make electricity, lower emissions. But New York is not Arizona. We are famous for many things like our universities, finance, forests, lakes, and snow. But the one thing we are not known for is immense, year-round sunshine. Our insolation is modest, our seasons long, our landscapes complex. When you clear hundreds or thousands of acres here for utility-scale arrays, the “return on disturbance” is fundamentally different than it would be in high-desert sun belts. You’re trading away habitat, soils, hydrology, and viewsheds for fewer kilowatt-hours per acre than those glossy brochures imply.

YOUR SUPPORT HELPS US TELL THE STORY
MEMBERSHIP IS FREE!

If you're already a subscriber or member, log in now. If you’re not yet a member, take action and join us today.

Thank you for your commitment!