Welcome to The Fight’s Q&A section where we’ll speak with the movers and shakers shaping every side of the debate over renewable energy deployment.
Today our subject is Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmentalist organization at times on the plaintiff end of lawsuits against projects. I decided to speak with him about how his organization’s opposition to some projects squares with its support for rapid climate action.
The following is an abridged version of our conversation.
What would you say to someone who says the work you do is delaying climate action?
There’s a huge amount of projects in the pipeline, and it’s not likely that our level of intervention is going to materially affect the overall rollout of clean energy.
We [the U.S.] aren’t picking the right projects to pursue. No plan exists in the federal government for where that energy is going to come from, where we’re going to pick which projects to permit. And we have no filtering criteria for which to say, well, this is a good project and there’s so many problems with this project that it’s a really bad project and we shouldn’t permit.
Why do you think the government isn’t engaging organizations like CBD about which projects to pursue?
It’s not a legal obligation. It’s probably a moral obligation. If you’re going to go to 50% EVs or whatever, you better have a plan for where all the lithium is going to come from! There’s places with lower tribal conflicts, these are knowable things. We can do it next week. We also need to consolidate solar projects. There are millions of acres that don’t have tortoises on them. We have more than enough land. I could just pencil that out right now – it’s not that hard to find the least conflicts. The data exists.
But again, industry’s been in the driver’s seat. Industry’s said, we have this application and it needs to be processed because we brought it in.
So what you’re saying is, you’d sit with Jigar Shah and just plan it out?
If he asked me to come, I’d be in D.C. tomorrow. Absolutely. That’s what we want — let’s plan it out, and then I can go work on other things, y’know? I’d be happy to sue over that [other] stuff.
Absent this planning, which sounds nice but has not happened, proponents of permitting reform often cite CBD’s repeated opposition as a reason to pass legislation that could limit your ability to challenge projects. What do you think about how your actions now could impact your capacity to act in the future?
I think some level of permitting reform was inevitable. I don’t think anything in the permitting bill will cease our efforts. It will make it harder for sure. I think the biggest thing it will do is eliminate the ability for frontline communities to engage, so we’re looking at an undemocratic clean energy transition where you have technocrats making decisions for how people’s lives will play out. People in these rural communities feel like they’re under assault. Low income desert folks feel like their whole life is going to be turned upside down.
