Is it okay to sacrifice one part of the environment to save another? That’s a tough question.

In one sense we do it all the time. While tearing apart the environment to build roads and cities, we also create conservation areas and natural parks that will be preserved. It’s a careful balancing trying to allow for economic growth while still protecting the ecosystems surrounding us.

In fact, those ecosystems are not just around us. We are very much a part of them – both as protectors and destroyers.

I don’t deny the very real need at times to build roads, cities, farms, and other elements of our existence – however we need to do so in as environmentally friendly a manner as (realistically) possible. The days of economic growth at any cost to the environment are over.

That brings us to the problem of organizations that are selling an environmental solution. Sometimes that solution really is something that our environment will benefit from. Other times however, the solution provides only a marginal benefit or even, significant costs.

Ethanol alcohol is an example of such a solution. Here is a product that at first sounds good. It is made from a renewable resource (corn) and it burns relatively cleanly. “What could be better than that,” we asked ourselves.

The problem is that producing ethanol is not a clean process – in fact it uses quite a bit of energy and creates pollution. We have essentially made ourselves feel better about the environment by moving the pollution from the car we drive to the ethanol plant. It not only hasn’t really helped the environment, but it may have made some things worse.

Ethanol is not the only “problem area” with environmental products. Another area is using solar energy to generate electricity.

Now on the surface I’m all for using sunlight to create electricity. After all, “what could be better than that?”

Well there are a few problems with solar energy. The primary one seems to be where to place the collectors.

One train of thought is to place the collectors on tops of homes and buildings. That idea makes sense to me. There’s going to be very little environmental impact by placing something on a roof, since there’s not a lot of environment up there to start with. It also reduces the costs of transmitting the electricity to where it’s needed. A solar panel can start by providing energy to the building that it’s located on top of. Any surplus energy could be supplied to the community infrastructure (grid). Any additional requirements could be received from the grid.

Another train of thought is to build huge solar power generating farms that supply the grid with the required electricity. These farms would operate in a manner similar to how conventional electricity generation is handled. There is a generator and a consumer. We also need to provide an infrastructure (grid) to get the electricity from the generator to the consumer.

But here’s the problem

Those big farms have to be created somewhere – somewhere with a lot of land and a lot of sunlight. It will also be somewhere with an ecosystem.

Creating solar farms involves processing that land – that is, taking a lot of ground away from the environment and turning it into a giant series of collectors.

Does that make a lot of sense? Should we be destroying delicate ecosystems in one area in order to feel environmentally friendly elsewhere, especially when we can “reuse” land by putting collectors on top of buildings?

As I understand it, there is a lot of money to be made by creating large scale power plants and transmission lines. There isn’t much money to be made by putting small collectors on roofs. That brings us back to one of the key questions of environmental living – are we protecting the environment, or are we building the economy?

To be realistic, both must be managed and cared for in order for true sustainability to occur – but let’s not continue sacrificing the environment for profit, even if it sounds eco-friendly.

Am I on the right track or completely wrong? Let me know your thoughts on the subject.