Inaccurate portrayal of the Ivanpah case
This article touches on a very important topic, which, broadly construed, is how we should plan for a transition to renewable energy and how we can do this in the most participatory, least-harm way. But the suggestion that environmental groups sat by and did nothing is incorrect. The LA Times didn't have its facts right either, which is a danger of rerunning their story. Look at the California Energy Commission intervenors listed in the ISEGS (Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station) case. The Sierra Club, Defenders, CBD, as well as Basin & Range Watch and Western Watersheds and California Native Plant Society, all spent countless hours intervening in this case-- they did not "keep quiet" as you report. The siting case went on for years. The plans for mitigation and plant design shifted quite a bit over this time, though in the end most of the groups voiced their cotinued opposition at the hearing when the California Energy Commission voted to approve the site. Western Watersheds is currently suing over the project. Unlike what the LA Times reports, there were at least three protests at Ivanpah, one led by a Native American group that protects sacred sites. I'm guessing the NRDC quotes in the LA Times were taken somewhat out of context- NRDC was only tangentially involved in Ivanpah and they never formally issued an opinion on the case.
