[dbeardsl]

That’s fair, it’s not ok to pretend desert has no life worth protecting.

However, there is a lot of it, and as far as impacted animals per acre, it’s got to be near the bottom. Thus of all the places to locate big solar projects, huge expanses of low life density flat land with lots have sun seems like it would minimize the harm.

[aeonfox]

As the article states, there's plenty of already disturbed land that can be used, instead of nature parks that harbor fragile ecosystems.

Also what people call "desert" isn't, like, the Sahara. There are many kinds of arid and semi-arid landscapes that people tend to underestimate because they aren't really habitable by humans or suitable for growing agricultural crops. The kinds of landscapes I'm referring are highlighted on the Friends of Nevada Wilderness website:

https://www.nevadawilderness.org/

It's not a flat plane with a few rocks and a lone cactus on it. That's just the cartoon characterisation that springs to mind when we think "desert".

[dalyons]

Yes, and deserts are just as susceptible to the effects of climate change as everywhere else. You have to build solar somewhere or they’re all doomed too.