Nearly every post on this blog is in response to me you whack-a-doo
1. I already fully understood that there were hybrid uses of land that had solar farms - to say otherwise would be disingenuous - I can read, why they eff wouldn't I edit the non highlighted part out if I didn't want it seen?
2. That doesn't change anything - there are still concerns in many areas and within our own Dept of Ag about "green energy" encroachment on productive land . . . thus the "however".
My gawd . . . you guys are so raged up these days I digress, because that's a known-known.
Poor usage of arable - productive ag lands isn't even the primary point you dumbass. The primary point is that green energy is not going to meet our needs, so why are we taking perfectly good land for growing food and grazing livestock and putting solar farms on it?