Hate solar? I really don’t get it…
January 6th, 2014
Well, folks, I’m losing my patience with yahoos’ hatred of solar. I keep hearing rumblings and screeches blasting Minnesota’s 1.5% solar mandate and solar generally. What’s that about? A temper tantrum? ENOUGH! It’s gotten so bad that I think it’s time for a metaphorical whack upside the head. It’s clearly not something that can be addressed with a rational discussion and/or more information.
A couple days ago, there was an article in the STrib about Mayflower Church’s solar project, following on the heels of ALJ Eric Lipman’s resource acquisition recommendation finding that solar was the least cost alternative (and related STrib article) for Xcel in this planning round:
I read the STrib story on that Lipman recommendation (see Massive solar plan for Minnesota wins bid over gas), and the comments following it were so bizarre and hateful. Ugly stuff. WTF??? People were spewing things that were so patently false that I’d laugh if all that hate weren’t attached. The hate attached makes it a problem. The nastiness and flagrant disregard for easily discoverable facts and basic nuts and bolts of administrative process is at such a disturbing level that it shouts “sociopathology!” With freedom of speech comes responsibility of speech, and I’m tired of the vitriol. Put a muzzle on it! It’s like 2 year olds having a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way (and there’s another article about those 2 year olds in the STrib lately… see Violent criminals behave exactly like uncivilized 2 year olds).
Solar isn’t anything new, and it’s getting better and better. It follows peak, which reduces peak demand, gives us a cushion and reduces need for new generation — it’s just exactly what we need, on every rooftop possible. DUH, it doesn’t belong on prime ag land, and DUH, we don’t want to go around frying birds or blowing 200 degree air into the neighbor’s homes, but get those panels on our roofs! NOW!
So anyway, there’s an article Friday about Mayflower’s project. Here’s the church, and there’s the steeple (people are actually saying they took down the steeple for solar… eh?)
The physical building has changed since the photo way above at the top. Mayflower built a sanctuary attached to the circa 60s education building and vacated the big ol’ white church, which was renovated and repurposed — it is now the Museum of Russian Art!
I grew up at Mayflower, had to go there ever Sunday until I moved out, and I gleefully participated in both the 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. sections of the confirmation classes, hey, what can I say, I love to argue theology/philosophy, though I did choose not to get confirmed. My parents were both Deacons for a long, long time, and active in various committees, including Benevolence, Social Action, Guild, Women’s Circle, and I know that the church has a long history of contribution locally, nationwide and internationally.
It was a thrill to see Rev. Sarah Campbell in the STrib showing off their solar project. They’ve had an energy mission, both educational and in fixing up the physical plant/planet, and a solar project fits in well with what they do. But after the article, I see the comments… What is wrong with people, the vile nastiness spewing out is so weird. They’re saying things about this church that are so far off base, that show they know nothing about it’s mission or history, and it’s just hateful. What is it about solar, about this project that scares people so? What is it about these commenters that they go so far off the deep end in their objections?
Objections and demonstrably false statements range from claims that it’s not a Christian church, that they build this huge solar project but didn’t make updates in their heat and insulation, that the church didn’t put Creekside Commons housing together, that the church built this project when instead they should “FEED THE POOR” and help people in need, that this is an example of the press supporting “radical hippie godless-element churches,” the article is “a masterful reassertion of Carbon Cult dogma,” that Mayflower is trying to tell other people how to live, that in Minneapolis “the loons aren’t always birds, solar panel owners are stealing from the ratepayers, “I think your god is Al Gore not the Lord,” that “liberalism can only be understood as a secularized religion. Abortion, “social justice,” and environmentalism are among its most cherished sacraments,” “espite mounting evidence to the contrary, no rational argument or recitation of facts will ever convince Ms. Campbell that anthropogenic global warming does not exist, or that installing taxpayer-funded solar panels on her church roof does nothing to advance “social justice.” “Everything they do is a social statement. These folks can’t take a leak without making it into a social statement.”
I just don’t get it. Someone please enlighten me. What is this anger about? It’s nuts, and I need to stop trying to make sense of this.
****************************
Minneapolis congregation fosters sun worship of a different sort
Minneapolis UCC church installs solar panels as social statement
December 13th, 2015 at 10:29 pm
Hey Carol, indeed what you describe is a form of pathology though not exactly the type you are thinking, perhaps. I’m pretty sure the motivating force for a significant amount of those comments is the described by the phenomenon called “trolling” by people non-affectionately described as “trolls”. Their goal is to infuriate, unbalance and sometimes fill people with FUD. There’s no omnipotent way to deal with them but first among the strategies is to understand their goal and not let it get you. BTW I grew up in Mayflower, too!