Is any source of energy sufficiently green?

At every step of the way, "conservationists" will find objections to any proposed source of energy. None will be acceptable. The real objection is not the environmental impact of the particular energy source, but the fact that it supports American capitalism and the American standard of living.

We've been preached to relentlessly about the need for renewable energy sources. One would think that solar power would be the pinnacle of renewable energy. One would think that a desert would be the ideal location for massive solar power projects. Where else would the sun shine brightly for the most days of the year except in a region that gets almost no rainfall? What other area seems less susceptible to damage by such a project?

Conservationists are objecting to a proposal to build a solar power project in the Mojave Desert. All those solar panels would damage "the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population." Wind turbines spoil the view and kill birds. Now solar panels spoil the view and hurt the tortoises.

Senagor Dianne Feinstein opposes the project in the Mojave. Arnold Scwarzenegger answered bluntly, "If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it."

Only energy sources sufficiently far enough removed to ever be used will be acceptable to the "conservationists." They will continually object to any source that can actually be used because of its negative impact on the environment. Democrats followed this line during the Cold War. They continually objected to the deployment of any weapons system in favor of further research on a weapons system under development.