US moves to cancel one of the largest solar farms

Aggressive fossil fuel phase‑out vs rule of law

• One strand argues the next administration should forcibly decommission coal/oil plants and mines, even destroying key equipment and paying owners/workers off, because coal is costly, unhealthy, and politically toxic.
• Others see that as vengeful, destabilizing and corrosive to rule of law, warning that such actions would be perceived as undemocratic and ignore national security/resilience concerns.
• Debate over whether “good policy” must be compromise vs situations where there is “one correct answer” (e.g. ending coal subsidies).

Why was Esmeralda 7 blocked? Corruption, ideology, or process?

• Some see straightforward fossil‑fuel capture: coal/oil/gas lobby money returning dividends, plus Trump’s explicit hostility to renewables and promises to fossil donors.
• Others highlight a technical angle: the Biden administration let seven linked projects file a single “programmatic” environmental review; the new team revoked that waiver, insisting on individual reviews like other projects.
• Skeptics doubt the good‑governance framing, expecting a mere shift in who gets special treatment rather than true equal application.

Canceled project vs canceled fast‑track

• Several commenters stress that the BLM says it did not cancel the solar farm itself, only its accelerated environmental review pathway.
• Others counter that terminating the review framework is effectively cancellation, given time and cost, and note the credibility problem of an administration that lies frequently.

Public land, conservation, and NIMBY dynamics

• Conservation groups and some commenters celebrate the decision, arguing the site is biologically and culturally significant “intact” landscape that shouldn’t become a private profit center.
• Opponents call this NIMBYism in “desert wasteland,” arguing that if solar can’t be built there, it may be impossible anywhere; defenders respond that deserts are biodiverse and disturbed/polluted land should be prioritized instead.

Utility‑scale vs rooftop solar

• Some environmentalists favor rooftop and already‑disturbed sites over large, remote arrays and transmission lines.
• Others argue rooftop solar is expensive, land‑intensive projects are unavoidable, and US policy (e.g. Nevada rooftop charges) is actively undermining distributed solar.

Energy prices, manufacturing, and intermittency

• Multiple comments tie cheap electricity directly to manufacturing and data‑center growth; canceling renewables is framed as incompatible with “bringing back manufacturing.”
• Intermittent loads like AI training, aluminum refining, EV charging, and some heavy industry are cited as candidates for time‑flexible consumption; critics note capital utilization constraints.
• Nuclear comes up as potential baseload, but cost and timelines are contested; some insist decarbonization can’t wait for a nuclear renaissance.

Permitting, bureaucracy, and climate skepticism

• Frustration with US permitting is widespread: environmental review is seen as slow, complex, and often favoring large incumbents who can afford compliance.
• A minority voice dismisses climate mitigation as pointless, calling climate a pretext for bureaucratic and lobbying “parasites,” and advocating adaptation instead.

Geopolitics and partisan framing

• Several comments tie Trump’s anti‑renewable moves to foreign oil interests (esp. Gulf monarchies) and broader efforts to weaken global climate commitments.
• Others see the pattern mainly as “own the libs” politics: reflexively reversing anything associated with prior Democratic administrations, regardless of energy or economic consequences.