Solar tax extenders and national parks

The final negotiations hammered out in the recently passed spending bill revealed that tax-extenders or “subsidies” for solar energy projects were a major focus of the debate. These increasingly controversial subsidies have been opposed for various reasons, including some that span the political spectrum. Namely, the Obama administration is backing taxpayer-subsidized renewable energy projects that stand to damage our national parks, and harm federally protected wildlife.  Such harmful projects should certainly not be eligible for privileged tax benefits or subsidies. 

At the Paris Climate Conference, the Obama administration sought for and achieved a global deal towards reducing carbon emissions, and prioritizing a global shift toward ecological sustainability and renewable energy.  This accomplishment is to be applauded.  However, here at home – and particularly in the California desert – we find the administration failing to correlate it’s international intentions with our national values by contemplating controversial renewable energy projects that conversely stand to permanently harm our nation’s most cherished landscapes. There is clearly a lack of cohesion.  By following such a policy, we would be in effect paying to protect America’s lands and species, and then paying again to destroy them.

{mosads}When this administration first began it’s push for large-scale renewable energy projects across the U.S. West, supporters and caretakers of our national parks cheered. Having dedicated my career to protecting our national parks and seeing firsthand the effects of climate change on wildlife and landscapes, it was easy to support renewable energy projects as a worthy use of tax subsidies. Unfortunately, the reality of that noble pursuit has led to far more damaging and significant impacts. Instead, we’ve seen reports of migrating birds being fried alive, and threatened desert tortoises being killed and their habitat industrialized making headlines, when better options exist.

Consequently, the California desert has become the poster child for how the large-scale solar subsidies program has gone wrong. The Obama administration is now one misstep away from approving the Soda Mountain Solar project at the boundary of Mojave National Preserve. During my three years as Superintendent of the nearby Joshua Tree National Park, I came to love Mojave National Preserve. Mojave is one of our largest national park sites.  It is home to the world’s largest Joshua Tree forest, sand dunes, volcanoes, 8,000 foot mountains, and a diversity of wildlife, including the iconic Desert Bighorn sheep. It provides recreation ranging from hiking to hunting, and it is an economic engine for local communities that serve over half a million visitors each year. But those values are threatened by the Soda Mountain Solar proposal. 

The political staff at the Bureau of Land Management have recommended the Obama administration approve the project while career scientists note it would significantly harm the Desert Bighorn.  The recommendation to approve the project is disturbing because it’s approval would be in sharp contrast to the substantial investments that both federal and state agencies have made over the past decade to protect the species.  It would destroy important sheep habitat, disconnect existing migration corridors, and prevent other migration corridors from being restored. All are essential for the animals’ survival.  For these and other reasons, the National Park Service strongly objects to the project, correctly stating that approving it violates the Obama administration’s own policies to responsibly build renewable energy projects so that national parks and special status wildlife are protected.

All this has led to an unprecedented diversity of opposition to Soda Mountain Solar from local businesses, cities and rural communities, ranchers, hunters, and a coalition of recreation and conservation groups.  Soda Mountain Solar is now the nation’s most controversial renewable energy project. Yet, the Administration may steamroll the public, favoring politics over science, and approve it. 

Ironically, at a time of global agreement about responding to climate change, poorly located proposals such as the one being considered for Soda Mountain reduce the needed public and Congressional support for a speedy transition to a clean energy economy. The project also seriously undermines the Administration’s call to other nations to take actions to help save the planet, because it fails to exhibit environmental leadership here at home, and it harms the most important values renewable energy seeks to protect in the long term.

As we look to next year’s National Park Service Centennial, let’s not forget that the American people have soundly rejected using taxpayer dollars to support the destruction of our parks and wildlife, as would be the case if the Soda Mountain project is approved. Ultimately, the Administration and Congress should ensure that subsidies do not extend to these ill-conceived proposals. Our national parks, and all Americans who own them, deserve better. 

Butler, former superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park, retired from the National Park Service in 2014 after more than 37 years of public service.  He now owns a consulting firm and works on environmental, energy, and corporate environmental responsibility issues throughout the U.S. West.