all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

This is either nimby syndrome or fossil propaganda

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    According to the fine article there was a solar farm going up near her that would have interfered with protected wildlife, and she was upset that the local government was unresponsive to the people. This is the same justified anger people have at data centers being built near them.

    However, she moved from that to claiming we don't need solar anywhere. She doesn't believe in human caused global warming, so from her completely unscientific worldview solar is just evil. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Last edit: never mind i thoroughly read the article and it falsely makes claims that she did not make such as her not supporting solar when she does in-fact support it.

    Sure be skeptical of her past but dont let that blind you in to imagining more than it is. Thats where this article is good at, leaving important details for imagination. ——- Edit: finally got to reading it, saw that she was a Q follower thats enough to convince me thats shes not to be trusted. Thats quite disappointing

    ——

    Ill edit and leave my original point since its still a valid reason for someone genuine to oppose solar farms.

    Solar panels belong in cities wheres there’s plenty of rooftops. So its valid to be against solar FARMS

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Her initial fight doesn't seem legit, i guess she is fossil money from the start? A beatiful face with some semi-credibility that can be influenced easily. I wasn't able to find much on photopholtaic-related dangers for birds, why are there so much concerns? The FortEdwardProject wasn't on protected land, just next to it. So fair game for any oil or datacenter project, so again this is quite irrational. This basically leaves peoples fears as basis of her popularity, like the article shortly mentions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    It's insane the way influencers are bought to lie. There's no way to know who is earnest and who is an idiot.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    TLDR: Article seems shady. Article claims she doesnt support solar at all, one of the linked references ironically shows her supporting solar, instantly debunking articles own claims..

    This article needs more scrutiny than the bare minimum i could provide. Its well written in the way it presents its logic, ill give it that. ——- After giving it a thorough read, theres something off about this article.

    It rightfully makes an attempt to make a sketical case about fasulo and shows that she was a Q follower, but that shouldnt make anyone close the book and view her as guilty.

    The article it doesnt seem to use anything thats current which supports the writers claim that shes against solar.

    In fact the writer claims that Fasulo does not support solar at all but the very same reference piece to her website shows Fasulo in support of “smart solar” as she describes putting solar on buildings, freeways, parking lots, anything that seems to already be in place and to spare farmland or forests.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 9 comments in c/collapse@sopuli.xyz view that post
    [–] [S] 11 points 3 months ago

    if only the atmospheric carbon would go underground as easily as my hope in humanity.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Her issue seems to be solar shouldn't disrupt nature, which is true.

    We need to be installing it over carparks, buildings, and maybe even roads.

    The problem is we're still letting private corporations plan the rollout, and they're gonna go for where it's cheapest, which is undeveloped land.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You're arguing in good faith. Which, good, don't let them take that earnest attitude. But she is not.

    She is getting paid to spread disinformation. Whatever actual misconceptions were there to begin, are probably now tied with deception and inseparable. Getting paid to lie makes it really easy to lie to yourself too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    No reason to assume she's getting paid. Plenty of people are just ignorant and angry. There's a coalition of Upstate NY farmers screeching like banshees about how NY agriculture is being sold up the river to support valueless clean energy initiatives. They're all over the local news and town halls and city councils.

    Never mind that only about 0.3% of NY's arable farmland has been converted to solar, or that moving to clean energy is essential to curb climate change that is literally right now, this week, flooding NY farms and destroying crop yields.

    Classic Hanlon's razor stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Thanks for pointing this out.

    It is worth noting that many of these farmers also have a material and financial interest in continuing fossil fuel dependency, as many of their corn crops go to biofuel in ethanol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    No reason to assume she's getting paid. Plenty of people are just ignorant and angry.

    In the individual I agree, but when it becomes an obvious astroturf process juiced up by rightwing nutjobs who own the platforms than that is different, hence why I put my effort in here and not those places.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Relevant open access research on this

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261926006604

    Most studies, however, tried to capture direct impacts of solar PV sites on biodiversity through field measurements, but even within these, methodological approaches varied considerably. For example, while many studies used the surrounding landscape as the control site [e.g. [56], [59], [65], [75]], others assessed biodiversity only within solar PV sites, using areas between panels or next to panels as control [e.g. [77], [91], [92]. Although such within-site comparison can provide useful insights into the effects of shading or altered water patterns on soil organisms or plants, from a life cycle perspective it is desirable to take the nearby (semi-)natural environment as a control environment to be able to make conclusions on the potential loss of biodiversity. An alternative approach would be to measure biodiversity levels before installation and again some years after [e.g. 104].

    Additionally, while it is important to understand the benefits solar PV sites can provide compared to, for example, intensely managed agricultural sites [e.g. [75], there is still the need for a standardised control condition across biodiversity assessments. For this reason, LCIA methods typically use a (semi-)natural reference landscape as the control condition, ensuring that the impacts of any land-use type can be assessed against a common baseline.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683926000787

    also relevant https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/05/18/spain-france-set-benchmark-in-renewables-expansion-without-biodiversity-loss/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The real problem with solar rn (esp in USA) is the fact they are building solar farms not for Net Zero, but to fuel AI Data Centers. The tech bros are accelerating our demise.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment