curious bias in this article
There is an underlying tone to this article that has me perplexed: it reads as if the environmental community is biting their tongues to not bring up the local habitat issues that are potentially compromised by building this project. And yet when I went to the BrightSource website, I found out the following facts:
-they went through a rigorous series of environmental assessments, including the high bars set by NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act, passing with flying colors. This was not only a scientific assessment but included meeting key stakeholders and developing mitigation plans which included things like not grading the sites and clipping, not removing extant vegetation.
-when they found in their continuing monitoring of the site that there were more endangered tortoises that initial censuses indicated, they scaled back the size of the project by 500 acres.
None of this sounds like what the tone of your article implies. It seems to me that projects like this are being sensitively sited to minimize their habitat impacts, including using disturbed ground, sites close to existing transportation and transmission infrastructure, etc. It also sounds like they are learning and adjusting to what the data indicates is needed. What more do you want?
