solarpunk memes

5987 readers

823 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

ex_06@slrpnk.net

tsugu@slrpnk.net

Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net

420

rural americans will drive past a coal-fired power plant, in their five mpg ford truck, to go to a small town city council meeting and complain about how environmentally destructive solar panels are (slrpnk.net)

submitted 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And their vote counts more than yours because they live in rural districts with lower populations. Smh at "democracy."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] omgboom@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So here's where this is not exactly always true. My parents own a good chunk of land, more than 100 acres. Around the same time we were approached by an oil company wanting to put a well on their land, and a solar company wanting to put solar panels on the land. The oil company wanted 5 acres for a 100 year lease. The solar company wanted 70 acres on a 100 year lease. During these leases the land effectively belongs to the company who signs the lease. So for solar, for 100 years we wouldn't be able to plant or grow or run livestock on the land. So the scenario pictured is not always the way that it works.

And for the record, we told both of the companies no.

[–] Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for posting about your experience with the leases, I had not considered the implication of the land use for solar on the landowner. I assumed you could still do whatever you wanted (within reason) under the panels with the understanding that anything in the way when it came time to service them would be moved or destroyed. Preventing grazing or planting would be a problem. I assume that is not necessarily how every lease is setup but its good info.

Having been to a couple of drill/frac sites on ag land, I'd say y'all made the right call by saying no to that.

[–] tedd_deireadh@piefed.social 4 points 14 hours ago

I've also heard anecdotes about companies leasing land for energy production. Windmills have similar restrictions on the landowner. Like no permanent structures within 100m. So, no barns, stables, corrals, etc. can be built for the 100 year term.

I don't have an issue with green energy, but those agreements are not nearly fair enough to the landowners.