They occupy an incredibly infantile frame that we should be less accommodating towards if we actually want an interesting collective future.
I think that's an arithmetic everyone largely accepts, but they just don't want to be the specific ones paying the price while others seemingly get only the benefits. NIMBYism, if you will.
Just like the complaints about how higher-density housing may hurt 'the environment' for whatever city people live in. Like, if everyone blocks high density housing, those people don't just disappear, they're gonna end up living in low density housing, and that's obviously much worse for the environment: takes up more space, which means cutting into nature more, and generally takes more energy for the lifestyle too.
But that doesn't matter to NIMBY's -- the important thing is that they don't have to see the environment changing where they live in particular.
These people would literally rather live next to mountain lions than next to slightly poorer people. (ignoring the fact that mountain lions don't actually roam bay area suburbs)
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/02/07/woodside-offici...
Next door neighbour's driveway had a mauled deer carcass in middle of day, few years ago.
There is a rational case that the huge footprint of solar and wind ends up doing more damage than more compact nuclear or natural gas plants. I suspect most of those opposing solar also oppose nuclear and gas.
I’d call it Nothing Is Good Enough Syndrome instead of NIMBY.
Definitely. Problem for us is that while more net-zero projects are being constructed than ever before, increased demand for energy has outpaced it, so we're ending up with more "dirty" energy capacity being added, not to mention the infuriating trend of decommissioning nuclear plants and replacing them with gas turbines.
We need to be building plants based on whatever net-zero technologies we know how to build. If that means more nuclear fission plants in the short term, whatever. Yeah I get that radioactive waste is a problem, but it's way easier to store the waste safely than it is to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. If something better comes about along the way, switch to building that when it comes. But don't just twiddle your thumbs and wait for it.
The hippies are right, the corporate whores are wrong.
https://www.newsdata.com/california_energy_markets/southwest...
https://www.energynetworks.com.au/news/energy-insider/the-de...
Early adopters of solar here had very strong feed-in tariffs, but these are non-existent now for new sign-ups because otherwise energy companies were paying out more and more, while still having the same grid/maintenance costs. It disincentivises people from upgrading their solar capacity too. If you got 3-5kW way back, but upgrade to 10kW now, you lose your lucrative feed-in tariff.
Going back many years, I remember my grandfather risking his health because he was scared of unpredictable electricity bills should he run his A/C. That's probably an argument against smart metering, at least for the elderly.
There's often talk of distributed battery systems. e.g., trial programs where houses with solar and batteries pool efforts.
Regardless, for every household that effectively goes offgrid, it leaves the fewer, remaining customers paying for the same powerlines and facilities. Solar uptake is about 30-40% here, from memory.
At this point, even if solar panels in the desert kill off a few species of lizards, seriously, what's the alternative? More damage will occur if we don't. It needs to be about minimizing total damage, even if it means damaging isolated areas intentionally.