Carolinian
TUG Member
Your thread title is false. Joshua trees are not endangered, and neither the state nor feds have determined so. A few thousand trees will not put a dent in the 5-10 million in the desert.
Your thread title is false. Joshua trees are not endangered, and neither the state nor feds have determined so. A few thousand trees will not put a dent in the 5-10 million in the desert.
You are against solar, EVs, or anything "green," so don't try to pretend you care about some Joshua Trees.
No because the video on weather.com said that Desert Tortoises are endangered, not Joshua trees, which are not. The source of the false statement is Carolinian, who created the title of this thread.Shouldn't you take up your beef with weather.com? They are the source of the statements you dispute.
Shouldn't you take up your beef with weather.com? They are the source of the statements you dispute.
No because the video on weather.com said that Desert Tortoises are endangered, not Joshua trees, which are not. The source of the false statement is Carolinian, who created the title of this thread.
No because the video on weather.com said that Desert Tortoises are endangered, not Joshua trees, which are not. The source of the false statement is Carolinian, who created the title of this thread.
Not under California or federal law.Threatened and Endangered are synonyms. I don't see a misleading headline. Perhaps these articles are designed to provoke a response though. There are always tradeoffs to development.
Nobody thinks they are right about anything. What damage does it take to make a solar panel or ev battery?Not under California or federal law.
LOL
"Carolinian" also says electric car batteries destroy the environment
Oh the humanity !
That is so ridiculous to take down trees for solar panels.
LOL
"Carolinian" also says electric car batteries destroy the environment
Oh the humanity !
No because the video on weather.com said that Desert Tortoises are endangered, not Joshua trees, which are not. The source of the false statement is Carolinian, who created the title of this thread.
Joshua Tree's what are protected? Skin, roots, needles? Kidding aside, no I am not going to bite on your political/contentious discussion of climate change, including why the California politicians enacted the law, but exempted solar farms from the restriction limit on tree removal.You do realize that Josua Tree's are protected by law because they are in danger of habitat loss due to climate change. In danger is synonymous with endangered, imo.
Joshua tree's are protected because the California Legislators made a law to defend Joshua Tree's from climate change. Oddly, these 4200 trees are to be destroyed and mitigated by funds to benefit some other species. Interesting is there are numerous sites in the area that would not require destroying any Josuha Trees. I get that there are millions of these trees and millions do burn in wild fires but I kind of like Josua Trees more than solar panels.
Bill
Nuclear power is extremely concrete intensive which is to my understanding very CO2 intensive. It's also kind of the most expensive electricity from everything I've seen. What I don't understand is why we would need to cut down trees that anyone cares about to do solar - we have so much "empty" land around this country...Nuclear power would appease them on their carbon fixation but not be a threat to the real environment like wind and solar are.
Concrete is CO2 intensive, but it is "one time", with the building of the power plant. Not an ongoing producer of CO2.Nuclear power is extremely concrete intensive which is to my understanding very CO2 intensive. It's also kind of the most expensive electricity from everything I've seen. What I don't understand is why we would need to cut down trees that anyone cares about to do solar - we have so much "empty" land around this country...
Because you have to run hundreds of miles of high transmission lines from “empty” to cities. That’s a lot of concrete and steel and digging up of every stretch of land from “empty.” It’s ugly as heck too.Nuclear power is extremely concrete intensive which is to my understanding very CO2 intensive. It's also kind of the most expensive electricity from everything I've seen. What I don't understand is why we would need to cut down trees that anyone cares about to do solar - we have so much "empty" land around this country...
Since Joshua Trees have come up as a topic
Here is a story with pictures of Joshua Tree National Park
The National Park is stunning with it's views, and Rock Formations
I visit Joshua Tree National Park once a year during the spring bloom of desert wildflowers
Stay at the Marriot Desert Spring Resort in Palm Desert for a couple of nights
The best place to locate new modular Nuclear plants is at shut down coal fired energy plantsBecause you have to run hundreds of miles of high transmission lines from “empty” to cities. That’s a lot of concrete and steel and digging up of every stretch of land from “empty.” It’s ugly as heck too.