START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

Are Industrial-Scale Solar Farms Bad For The Environment?

Are Industrial-Scale Solar Farms Bad For The Environment?

Fossil fuels are so last century. They’re dangerous to produce and filthy to burn. More importantly, they’re disappearing, and in order to get at the very last drops lingering deep in the earth, we’ve had to invent even more dangerous and filthy methods of extraction.

With that list of cons stacked up against Big Oil, Coal, and Gas, renewable energy looks like the tooth fairy. What could be more opposite than benign equipment that harvests energy that naturally occurs all around us? Although there’s no denying that solar, wind, geothermal, and other forms of alternative energy are better for our planet and the future of global power production, it’s important not to give them the rubber stamp treatment.

In June, the Obama administration finalized a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development on federally-controlled land. Approximately 285,000 acres of public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah were made available to solar companies looking to build commercial-grade arrays. Even as it opened up 17 “solar energy zones” for fast-track development, the administration also put 78 million acres off-limits. Still, the PEIS for this development proposal acknowledged that solar projects not sited in the approved zones would still be considered — these are called “variance lands”. (Note: the PEIS, which also lays out alternative management plans, has not yet been adopted by Bureau of Land Management)

At first glance, this decision seemed to be cause for celebration. Finally, public land would be put to use for the public good — creating clean energy that could benefit the entire nation. After all, oil, gas, coal, and logging companies have had permission to pillage these public lands for decades,  why shouldn’t solar companies be allowed to use them too?

That type of reasoning could be dangerous for the very wildlife, resources and ecosystems we’re trying protect, however. Recently the National Parks Conservation Association criticized the Interior Departments decision, saying that lands adjacent to our national parks are not appropriate for any kind of development, solar or otherwise. Here’s more from an article by the NPCA’s Dr. Guy DiDonato, David Lamfrom and Elizabeth Myers:

The National Park Service has identified areas of land around 53 national parks and six national historic trails where, if industrial solar development were permitted to occur, significant conflicts with park resources and values would result. Some of the lands potentially available for solar development flank Death Valley National Park to the east and nearly abut Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. In Nevada, BLM variance lands encircle Great Basin National Park and border Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Solar developments, under the second alternative above, could creep up to the border of Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and crowd up against Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

Although it supports the general idea of solar development, the NPCA thinks protected lands should be just that: protected from any and all human intrusion. “Other excellent alternatives exist: using brownfields and other disturbed public lands, continuing to develop rooftop solar resources on the existing built environment, and supporting projects of all sizes on suitable private lands,” writes DiDonato et. al.

Of course, one could also argue that without rapid renewable energy development, it’s impossible to reduce our fossil fuel consumption fast enough to mitigate the damage it’s doing. Climate change is also a threat to these national treasures and the wildlife that calls them home. What’s worse, polluting pristine lands with smog, fracking wastewater, and oil drilling rigs, or ruining an iconic view with a couple hundred solar panels? Is the fast-tracking of significant amounts of cheap, clean solar energy so noble a cause that it’s worth interrupting migratory patterns or fragmenting habitats?

There is no easy answer to this question. All I know is that without action on renewable energy, the effects of human-accelerated climate change will become more drastic and we won’t be able to adapt as well as some of our wild friends.

Related Reading:

Top 10 U.S. Species Threatened By Fossil Fuels

First-Ever Solar Project On Public Lands Begins Delivering Power

7 National Seashores Threatened By Climate Change

Read more: , , , , , ,

Image via Thinkstock

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
4:13AM PDT on Jun 21, 2014

Still think solar and wind power are better than coal

7:56AM PDT on Mar 15, 2013

Thank you Beth, for Sharing this!

4:09PM PST on Mar 6, 2013

I'd like to see a mirror placed in geo-sync orbit to allow sunlight to shine on these large scale projects 24 hours a day.

3:55PM PST on Mar 6, 2013

Thank You for the thoughtful article!

9:07AM PST on Jan 17, 2013

Actually it's a very easy question to answer. Do the math on the kinds of damage that all the different energy sources do, and recognize the reality that we must get energy from somewhere. There's always going to be a boundary line drawn somewhere as to what land can and can't be used for what purpose.

5:33PM PDT on Nov 2, 2012

Solar farms will be detrimental to the environment, but not as detrimental as a 2 degree rise in world temperatures.

4:08PM PDT on Oct 8, 2012

Stephanie D. - Please look into solar leasing (, for example). There is no up-front significant investment, so there is no long-term payback time.

11:46PM PDT on Oct 7, 2012

interesting to say the least, thanks for the article!

1:48PM PDT on Oct 3, 2012

You looking for something different, now you do not like it. I agree everything "overdone " is not good, but I think solarfarms are much better as nuclear plants. The big farms, maybe would be not needed,if the solarsystem would be more affordable for the common person. I try my best to turn selfsufficiant. I have several watercatcher, a composter, growing some of my vegtables and was interessted to get solar on my roof. I am 45 years old and just to break even with the solar investmend would take me between 20 and 25 years. Is not worth for me. If it would be more affordable I defently would had put the efford in.

6:20AM PDT on Oct 3, 2012

Thank you

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Since WHEN is ANY cigarette safe !!! I am sad to say i am a smoker and it is so hard to quit and i do…

Kamia T., I think you just described American politics to a T.

Signed, thanks. With over 400,000 bison commercially farmed all over the West, why do the 5,000 genetically…

meet our writers

Beth Buczynski Beth is a freelance writer and editor living in the Rocky Mountain West. So far, Beth has lived in... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!