A huge victory for conservation -- one in which Audubon played a leading role -- was won on America's Sagebrush terrain out West this week. It marks a giant step toward restoring the role of sound science in managing public land, and resolving conflicts between two national priorities: increasing our domestic energy supply and protecting the environment.
It began in Wyoming, where the federal government's Bureau of Land Management is the state's largest landowner. Until recently, the BLM's policy for energy development pretty much amounted to "drill, baby, drill."
That shortsighted view allowed oil and gas wells to be drilled every 10 acres, devastating vital habitat for the iconic western species, the Greater Sage-Grouse, and other wildlife. As Sage-Grouse populations plummeted, it seemed inevitable that the bird would soon end up on the Endangered Species list in a last-ditch effort to prevent extinction.
About 70 percent of land in Wyoming provides habitat for Sage-Grouse. An Endangered Species Act listing would likely stop virtually all energy development -- including the wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects so urgently needed to help address climate change -- on all of that land. Local economies would suffer as well. We were headed for a train wreck reminiscent of the spotted owl-logging conflicts 20 years ago in the Pacific Northwest.
Facing this dire outcome, Wyoming's forward-looking governor, Dave Freudenthal, formed a Sage Grouse Task Force of ranchers, energy developers, conservationists, and community leaders to find a better solution. Audubon Wyoming's director, Brian Rutledge, and his team proposed to the task force that not all habitat for Sage-Grouse is equally important for the species' survival. Applying sound scientific principles, they helped the group identify and map "core habitat" areas that are truly essential.
In the end the stakeholders followed the science in designating about 20 percent of Wyoming as core habitat, subject to extensive -- but not total -- limits on energy development. All the remaining non-core habitat areas will be available for energy development with lesser controls.
Once the governor's task force adopted this science-based habitat management policy for the state, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar embraced it, too. The official designation of the policy for BLM land in Wyoming is cause for celebration and optimism.
This is a huge victory for both energy independence and the environment. Nearly seven million acres of core sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming will be protected. At the same time more than 12 million acres of marginal sage-grouse habitat will be available for energy development without the threat of Endangered Species Act litigation. Even in many core habitat areas, energy development can proceed by using existing technologies that disturb no more than 5 percent of the surface area per square mile.
The BLM is now exploring how to expand this core habitat strategy to other states. And Audubon is working to help make that happen. Ultimately, this policy could stretch nationwide. If we act smart from the start by applying sound, science-based land management policies before declining species reach the endangered-species list, we can increase domestic energy supply and have amazing wildlife like the Sage-Grouse.
To see video clips of Governor Freudenthal and Brian Rutledge explaining why this matters, visit our website.
if you cared about birds, you would insist that all energy development take place in the existing built environment, which would also help democracy, the economy, energy rates, and conservation while saving water, open space and species like the sage grouse. there is literally NO reason other than Big Energy profiteering, to site these power plants in our wilderness, so since you are advocating "good science," go ahead and apply it to the massive destruction wrought by Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmission, then join us on the side of decentralized, democratic, non-lethal sustainability, won't you?
Start by pushing for feed in tariffs and loans for all of us whose homes and businesses sprawl and bake in the sun all day, continue with efficiency mandates and storage research, and conclude with a total moratorium on building in our pristine ecosystems. It's fun and easy, and you would actually be RIGHT.
This is great news, and something that Senator Feinstein in California could really learn from, in regards to the Mojave Desert.
I know about the massive efficiency drops in thermal electricity production in hot climates, for example (like, say, in a desert), and the additional massive efficiency drops when the plants have to be air-cooled (like, say, in a desert), and the transmission losses over hundreds of miles (greater, say it with me, in hot climates).
So if we start out with an incredibly ambitious 25-30% efficiency rate for CSP, knock 25% off for heat efficiency losses at peak hours, another 25% off for air-cooling, and another 10% for transmission losses, what do we get? woops - roughly 12-15% efficiency. But rooftop solar, sited properly, will easily match or exceed those numbers, while also decongesting the grid, reducing risks of fire, blackouts, cyber and terrorist attacks, and democratizing our grid - and being cheaper.
You see, it's not "science" that is telling us to put solar power in the deserts - it is Chevron, BP, Goldman Sachs and other Big Energy mercenaries, who have provided very generous grants to a selection of Big Enviro lapdogs to "educate" conservationists about how great destroying millions of acres of wilderness is for the planet. never mind the increases in GHGS, the extortionate costs, the water waste, the dead species, and the much longer timeline for effectiveness? It would be laughable if it weren't so scary. If you think these people do not run our country, you are incredibly naive.