Why are people disagreeing? I find it wild that people actually condone putting a solar farm on a state park. That land is supposed to be mostly natural and for public use. If the park wants to power itself using solar, then put it on the roofs and cover the parking areas with panels. Don't contract out a forest/field to be developed as a solar farm.

Maybe I'm jaded, but it seems like city people want to exploit the natural lands to produce their electricity. True NIMBY. It's hard to claim to care about the environment when being willing to destroy it when alternatives exist.

What would be unnatural lands that you'd find acceptable for use?

Yeah why do I have to pay to get it in my roof when a solar company will buy land to put up solar cells. Just put it on my roof instead. I won't complain.

>Replacing natural lands with solar farms is one of the stupidest things I've seen

"Says here[1] on this study published by university lab funded by a consortium of the same interests that develop the solar that this is fine"

-smarmy HN linkposters

[1] <link to study that doesn't even support my thesis but you can't tell because it's behind a paywall>