[justsocrateasin]

I think there is a very strong argument that the effects on the local ecosystems and habitat from putting down solar energy is significantly less than the effects that will occur from climate change. This is a straw man argument and I'm pretty tired of seeing it (similar vein - "wind turbines kill birds", yeah but not as much as climate change will!)

[bmitc]

My comment isn't a logical fallacy. It's lazy of you to throw that out there, and it doesn't automatically debunk what you're responding to. Plus, I just asked a question.

My comment comes from a place of pointing out a chain of events of engineering causing problems, then engineering solving those problems while creating new problems. Of course, if you just dismiss that plants and animals live there in the desert, then you don't need to think about them. But if you don't dismiss them but still need the solar power at all costs, then maybe studies could be commissioned that provide the ecosystem the best change for unintended negative change if the solar panels absolutely must be built.

And let's not act like these solar panels will have much to do, if anything, with helping to mitigate climate change.

[Ajay-p]

It appears to also be a legal argument that has been used to stop solar development, endangered species, but also NIMBYism.

https://electrek.co/2021/07/26/us-largest-solar-farm-is-scra...