It's an important point, but also one that needs to be kept in perspective. The land needed for renewable electricity will be far smaller than the land that we have already disrupted for agriculture. That doesn't mean that it's fine to keep on clearing more land, but I don't think renewables are going to be a game changer in the sense that they would lead to drastically increased land use overall. In other words, this is a valid and important concern, but (to my understanding) it does not mean we will run out of space for renewables. It does not impact whether we *can* mitigate emissions through renewable electricity; it might impact whether we *should*, and *how*.
I would suggest framing these concerns (solar arrays disrupting natural habitat, etc.) through this question: what is the alternative? (Keep relying on fossil fuels, reduce energy use through increased efficiency, reduce energy use by convincing people to make do with less, find ways to produce solar and wind power with less habitat disruption, find alternative renewable sources that don't require habitat disruption, etc.)
Every alternative I'm aware of has its own drawbacks, so the question is how those drawbacks compare, and to what extent can we mitigate them.
Agriculture on its own have deleterious effects on the carbon and water cycles.
To do more vith less land and inputs, and recover topsoil and forests, adopting agroforetry using Syntropic Agriculture is a way forward.
Currently, it will have higher labor costs, due to less opportunities for mechanization and new types of equipment, but require less fertilizer and pesticides, reducing its reliance on Oil/Gas.
As a bonus, it does continual carbon sinking to the grond, reduces irrigation needs and, due to higher output, may feed wild animals, reducing competition with our comsumption.
It's an important point, but also one that needs to be kept in perspective. The land needed for renewable electricity will be far smaller than the land that we have already disrupted for agriculture. That doesn't mean that it's fine to keep on clearing more land, but I don't think renewables are going to be a game changer in the sense that they would lead to drastically increased land use overall. In other words, this is a valid and important concern, but (to my understanding) it does not mean we will run out of space for renewables. It does not impact whether we *can* mitigate emissions through renewable electricity; it might impact whether we *should*, and *how*.
I would suggest framing these concerns (solar arrays disrupting natural habitat, etc.) through this question: what is the alternative? (Keep relying on fossil fuels, reduce energy use through increased efficiency, reduce energy use by convincing people to make do with less, find ways to produce solar and wind power with less habitat disruption, find alternative renewable sources that don't require habitat disruption, etc.)
Every alternative I'm aware of has its own drawbacks, so the question is how those drawbacks compare, and to what extent can we mitigate them.
Agriculture on its own have deleterious effects on the carbon and water cycles.
To do more vith less land and inputs, and recover topsoil and forests, adopting agroforetry using Syntropic Agriculture is a way forward.
Currently, it will have higher labor costs, due to less opportunities for mechanization and new types of equipment, but require less fertilizer and pesticides, reducing its reliance on Oil/Gas.
As a bonus, it does continual carbon sinking to the grond, reduces irrigation needs and, due to higher output, may feed wild animals, reducing competition with our comsumption.
Your opinion pieces are really good to read, I enjoyed them, thanks for sharing!! Can I find you on LinkedIn as well?