In Southern California this past week there have been much opposition to plans for new solar plants to be constructed. As much as "five solar thermal projects" are facing opposition says the New York Times. While these projects would "power more than two million homes, create thousands of construction jobs and help the state meet aggressive renewable energy mandates," the opposition is worried about the wild life living in these areas. These solar panels would be built "in fragile landscapes and are home to desert tortoises, bighorn sheep and other protected flora and fauna." This construction would destroy their nature habitat, probably killing most.
While I am a big supporter of solar energy, this construction seems to be the wrong idea. We would be destroying a huge ecosystem in the protected landscape of Southern California. While it is always good to build new solar plants to generate homes and provide jobs, putting these five solar plants in would do more harm then good. I believe the regulators need to find a new place to put these plants so they do not ruin the animals habitat. Hopefully they can because these solar plants would be very beneficial to the state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/business/energy-environment/24solar.html?_r=1&ref=earth
I agree with you, but as we know businesses are looking to increase their profit. And if they do this, their profits will surely increase rapidly.
ReplyDeleteThey are facing issues with ethics now. What do you think will happen?
This story raises the question of Corporate Social Responsibility. The company interested in building these solar power plants must determine if their loyalty lies with the creation of jobs for the Southern Californian population, with the environmental benefits the project would produce, or with the ecosystems the project would endanger. All three stakeholders are important and serious thought must be given to the situation before a final decision is made. If the company upsets too many people, their popularity and respectability could both be damaged.
ReplyDelete