Think we could make huge progress on climate by turning offshore wind into electricity?
Think again.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
An Oregon conservationist and writer-agitator sends up a warning about development of wind turbines off the Oregon coast. Andy Kerr has a lengthy career as a political activist, most notably on behalf of forest preservation, but more widely on all environmental issues. He writes. He testifies at hearings. He organizes and motivates people. He recently posted an article:
Here is a link to it. He argues that the problems with offshore wind outweigh the benefits. My purpose here is not to enter into the argument of whether he is correct, beyond saying I am in favor of trying every alternative to fossil fuels with the hope that over the next century human technology will have figured out the best one, or more likely, best several.
Instead, I want to use the article itself as a primary source. A document. Look at it as an example of a mindset and sensibility. It represents a way to think about new energy developments, and more generally any large project. It reflects suspicion. It is hostile. It assumes some person or entity might profit, and that this is bad. It emphasizes problems. This mindset is common among people in the educated-environmental-progressive-suburban demographic that makes up the center of the Democratic coalition. Their sensibilities now shape the party. Someone wants to do something. A factory! Affordable housing! Stop them!
The article is about the potential problems with offshore wind turbines that would float ten to possibly forty miles offshore, tethered to the sea bottom. They would be invisible on shore, but we learn that people with homes on high bluffs might see dim lights on the horizon. Fishing boats would see them. A portion of the area would be "industrialized" by these turbines, and the article shows this image of a battery of turbines 60 miles offshore the German shore. The article warns: Some of the turbines might be big!
The article concludes with recommendations, headlined:
How to Pour Sand in the Gears
Defenders of offshore Oregon need to gird their loins for a long battle.
The article posits "developers" who will "exploit" and "despoil" this part of the ocean with turbines. Potential sand in the gears would be establishing Marine Sanctuary zones which would prohibit development. We could ban turbine installers from using ports in Oregon. We could require upfront deposits for de-commissioning to wreck the economics of the project. We could file lawsuits. The tactics are analogous to the widespread tactic employed by states with anti-abortion legislatures. States passed laws to "protect" women by requiring burdensome rules regarding facilities and waiting periods. Abortions were legal, but inaccessible.
People who are generally part of the educated Democratic demographic--a majority of my readers--can see in this article why Democrats have lost the support of working people, especially those in rural areas with resources that might be developed. Democratic environmentalists are associated with luxury elitist perfectionism. Plausible, job-creating projects are smothered, with the result that fossil fuels continue, which the same environmentalists condemn, so they want confusing cap-and-trade tax systems. It fosters a reputation that Democratic environmentalists will oppose any project, especially if they leave their city for a weekend getaway at the coast and might see lights on the far horizon with binoculars. In an ocean that accommodates container ships and oil tankers, we cannot have wind turbines. Yeah, right. No wonder we can't get anything done in America.
The article's arguments, and ones like them, have stopped construction of dams, new ports, new pipelines, new railroads, new factories, new power plants, new oil refineries. The arguments work--especially if it affects our back yard.
Kerr's sensibilities may well reflect the values of a great many people, including readers of this blog. He expresses his view clearly and boldly. That sensibility has consequences. To a great many Americans, it looks precious, perfectionist, hypocritical, and elitist. While we are killing offshore wind, we are still using coal to make electricity, and that looks stupid.
Hmm, houses also destroy views of previously open fields . . .
Personally I like the look of offshore wind mills. Makes me feel like we're taking a step in the right direction. Fishermen go to ocean buoys for accumulations of fish. Wind mills also deny petrol dictators the funds to enrich themselves and hold the rest of the world hostage to their adventures. We need to stop thinking politics and begin thinking about survival.