I am writing in regards to the Augusta City Council’s decision to put a moratorium on the building of solar farms in the city (“Augusta bans large solar project developments for 180 days,” Aug. 6). Based on the article published in the KJ, it seems this decision was based on numerous complaints by constituents that these “farms” are not aesthetically pleasing, and residents don’t want Augusta to be known as the solar capital. Why not? Do we want to be known as the city of urban sprawl? What about our fossil fuel burning, polluting, mass-consuming society is aesthetically pleasing?

I am assuming these farms were built in full compliance with city zoning laws. If an industrial park had been constructed on the field on Route 3, would residents be complaining about that? I think industrial parks are ugly. I think housing developments are ugly and so is the shopping plaza that cleared a forest by the interstate. Why are solar farms being held to a different standard?

At this point in the Anthropocene, the aesthetics of energy production, green or otherwise, are the least of our problems.

 

Tracy Weber

Augusta

Copy the Story Link