misadventure.JPG

Past where the pavement ends: Most of the old pinelands used to look like this spot that in Jackson Township would be bulldozed for a solar array.

(Photo by Paul Mulshine)

When I was a lad growing up in Toms River, Jackson Township was little more than a swath of pine forest with a country-and-western bar as its cultural center.

But at least it was a nice pine forest and a good country-and-western bar.

These days the pines have been paved over with McMansions and the bars are in strip malls. So it was nice to take a ride the other day past a "Pavement Ends" sign to one of the few stands of virgin pine trees still left.

It's a wonderful spot, with plenty of habitat for deer, hawks and other wildlife. But soon 18,000 of those trees will be cut down - in the name of environmentalism.

The forest in question is on the property of Six Flags Great Adventure. Park officials announced recently that they intend to cover 90 acres with one of those sprawling solar arrays that the state government encourages in the name of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

But wait a minute. Don't trees absorb carbon dioxide? Indeed they do, and pine trees are among those that best absorb it. Yet all over the state we see trees being cut down to clear the way for massive solar arrays that are set off by tall chain-link fences.

This represents a rather clever bait-and-switch tactic being foisted off on us by what might be called the "solar-industrial complex" - a consortium of elected officials, solar industry representatives and alleged environmentalists.

The bait is the assertion that we can generate lots of solar power by placing panels on rooftops, on old landfills and erected on pillars above the cars in parking lots.

The switch comes when they decide to just mow down a lot of forest and farmland instead.

A solar array on what was once a green field at Mercer County College. Such arrays must be fenced off with chain link because of the hazard from high voltage. The Sierra Club supported the clearing of 30 acres of farms and forests for this scheme.

Andrew Kern is on to the scam. He's a member of the township planning board who has had experience selling solar systems. When the Great Adventure plan came before the board, he asked why that solar array had to go in what he called "the 100-acre wood" in a nod to Winnie the Pooh.

"I'm a solar guy. I think solar's great, solar's fantastic," Kern told me. "But there's other ways, especially when you have that 60-acre parking lot. It just kills me they're cutting down the 100-acre wood to do this."

Me too, especially after I noticed how close that pristine pine forest is to Interstate 195 and that big outlet mall.

I could see why the tree-huggers might want to have the state purchase it and set it aside forever as an island of open space in the fast-growing township. But I can't see why they'd support destroying it just so the solar developer can save a few bucks. That's what this is all about, said Kern.

"They put none on the rooftops or in the parking lot," he said. "They just said, 'Let's go the easiest route.'"

I saw the same thing at Mercer County College, where the developer passed up the parking lot to build on a beautiful field nearby. And then there's Bedminster, where KDC solar, the same company that's doing the Jackson project, is planning to cover a farm field right out of a picture postcard with unsightly solar panels instead of putting the panels atop the office complex the array would serve.

"They never met a chainsaw they didn't like," says Jeff Bolash, one of the neighbors organizing to stop the Bedminster plan. "They never met a tree they liked."

Of course, the business people are in business to make a profit. So you can hardly blame them for seeking the most profitable approach. But studies show the carbon-reduction benefits of solar can be almost canceled out if trees are cleared to make way for them. There's no such drawback with panels on rooftops and parking lots.

So why do those tree-huggers want to cut down trees? In an Asbury Park Press article on the plan, David Beavers of Environment New Jersey was quoted as saying, "This is going to be the biggest installation in New Jersey, which is going to be a huge step in the right direction."

But when I got the group's director, Doug O'Malley, on the phone yesterday he said Beavers had spoken a bit too quickly. Once the group got a good look at the plan, their views sounded a lot like those of Kern.

"We did not know they are targeted forested areas," said O'Malley. "This is a lost opportunity."



It's not totally lost yet. The township could still withhold approval. If so, O'Malley said the group wants to see the solar installed over the lots.

"It would keep cars cool during the hot summer months," he said. "It would be truly a landmark so others should follow its lead."

Teresa Lourenco with trees cut down for the Solar array at Mercer County College; this is one of many such projects that were supported by the Sierra Club.

The same goes for that Bedminster project, he said,

"There's a huge opportunity in Bedminster to install over parking lots," he said. "Ideally New Jersey could be leading the way for parking-lot solar."

Other environmental groups disagree. The Sierra Club, for example, has supported solar projects over farms and forests.

But it's nice to know there's at least one group of tree-huggers that wants to hug the trees - before the solar-industrial complex saws them down.

EDITOR'S NOTE;



In an addendum to a column last week, Paul Mulshine claimed that the

Sierra Club supported a solar project at Great Adventure that called for

mowing down a forest to make room for panels. The Sierra Club does not

support the project, and opposes any solar project on forested land. It

has supported projects that called for removal of some trees.

ADD :

It looks like the Sierra Club is switching sides as well in the fight over whether to bulldoze open space for "green" energy. If you read the link above to my prior column on the proposed Bedminster solar project, you came across this passage about how the Sierra Club opposed a bill to prohibit the practice:

Here is the release sent by the Sierra Club:

By: Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club

Note: Mulshine1s column deliberately misrepresented the position of the

Sierra Club. We oppose cutting forests for solar arrays and have done so

in other sites like Moonachie and Bedminster, New Jersey. Mulshine also

never called or spoke to us for a comment on our position.

The Sierra Club opposes the proposed clear cutting of environmentally

sensitive forests by Six Flags for a solar array. Mulshine not only got it wrong, but never called us for our position. The Sierra Club believes that cutting down forests for solar panels undermines clean energy. By releasing carbon from clear-cutting forests, the new emission defeats the purpose. We support renewable energy, but feel you have to do it right.

Six Flags has many alternative sites for solar like parking lots and disturbed fields.

The site that they want to clear-cut for the proposed solar contains bald>eagle habitat, high quality wetlands, and important headwater streams for the Barnegat Bay. Not only will the site carry nutrient pollution from animals at safari park, but pollution from the solar farm will enter the bay. We should not be sacrificing clean water for solar. Cutting 18,000

trees will add more flooding, since the original trees had the ability to

absorb carbon and clean our air. Six Flags plans to re-plant the trees but it will take at least 30-40 years for the forest to return to its original state.

We oppose putting commercial solar on preserved farms or farms that are protected by zoning like in the Highlands and Pinelands. If a farm can be developed and the choices are warehouses or McMansions, we think solar is an appropriate use. We would like to see towns regulate solar on farms to reduce impacts and keep solar arrays from vying agricultural soils. Solar on farms should be clustered: 80 percent open space and 20 percent solar.. When the solar array is obsolete, then the farmland can be

restored back to original state.

We strongly support renewable energy to help reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution, but it has to be done in the right place. There shouldn1t be a conflict between preserving the environment and clean energy. They should complement each other. We commend Six Flags for wanting to get all their electricity from solar. We would like to work with Six Flags to come up with a more appropriate implementation.

>

>--

.