A tractor seat is a good place to think about things.
A recent daylong shift baling hay provided me plenty of time to think, and my mind settled on two unlikely topics that seemed appropriate under the hot afternoon sun.
It seems to be a common occurrence anymore to read about a new solar “farm” being planned for a rural area. Supporters of such projects sell them to the public by using feel-good terms such as “renewable,” “green” and “clean energy.”
In my opinion, it’s all a farce and there’s nothing clean about large-scale solar farms when the projects consume actual farmland.
The solar projects, however, are just another example of how this country takes for granted the land that has been used to grow the very food that feeds us. Shouldn’t that fact alone be enough to make farmland off limits to uses such as solar?
Food production isn’t a strong enough reason to prevent farmland from being covered with thousands of black panels, however.
In New York, officials estimate that 452,000 acres of agricultural land will be developed for solar and residential use.
In central Pennsylvania, a single solar project has consumed 1,755 acres of farmland, and more are planned for rural areas throughout the state.
One of the main drivers for solar projects is “carbon neutrality,” which means to reduce emissions in the effort to combat climate change.
In reality, the earth’s climate has always been changing, and arrays of solar panels over what was once green farmland aren’t going to stop it.
In fact, it’s ironic that we consume farmland with solar panels in an attempt to reduce carbon that was actually being sequestered by the very crops that used to grow there.
According to a report from the USDA Economic Research Service, three of the five top means of carbon sequestration involve agriculture — land converted to grassland, grassland remaining grassland and cropland remaining cropland.
In fact, the report states a reduction in cropland from wind or solar projects may lessen or even eliminate emissions reduction.
Basically, when it comes to capturing carbon and reducing emissions, farmland planted in crops or pasture has been pretty efficient with the task.
But here’s the thing that really gets me with the entire solar on ag land debate: If carbon emissions are causing climate change, and climate change is a threat to mankind, then why are so-called solutions like solar panels funded by incentive payments and tax credits by the government?
If solar is going to save the world, why does it take a financial incentive to motivate people to cover the landscape with panels?
Still, there’s another caveat to be considered with the current rush paint over farmland with solar panels.
For some farmers, a solar lease means a greater economic return on the land than the value of the crops that were produced.
And that’s what needs to be fixed.
If farmers were paid a fair, consistent price for producing the food that we all need to survive, then maybe they’d be less likely to take that valuable land out of production with a solar lease.
The land that produces our food has a value that can’t be measured, and it shouldn’t be lost to a boondoggle like solar.
This post was originally published on 3rd party site mentioned in the title of this site
