Interesting article today about the “psychological reality” of the coming age of wind power:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/17/bitter.wind.ap/index.html
I suspect many of us who successfully fought the Redington windfarm project can wholly relate, even as we struggle with the inherent contradictions in that sentiment.
blisterfree
Wow! A powerful article! This is another unnecessarily polarizing issue made so by high stakes political agendas. Reminds me of that great champion of environmental causes who singlehandly crushed the Cape Wind Project - Teddy “Not-In-My-Backyard” Kennedy.
I can’t relate on such a personal level, Blisterfree, but if BIG WIND gets its way say good-bye to our “amber waves of grain”. Not to mention moutaintops across the country that will be stripped bare to accomodate windmills. Isn’t there just a touch of irony in the fact that so many of those who would blindly support such projects that will destroy miles of beautiful landscape so vehemently oppose oil drilling in the wasteland that is the Alaskan coastal plain that nobody will ever visit or see? In order to enhance America’s energy independence, I happen to be in the “all of the above camp” - oil, natural gas, shale oil, clean burn coal, nuclear, wind, hydrogen. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of this community. I just hope folks take the time to actually read the article. And think.
Lady Treehugger
LT wrote:
Isn’t there just a touch of irony in the fact that so many of those who would blindly support such projects that will destroy miles of beautiful landscape so vehemently oppose oil drilling in the wasteland that is the Alaskan coastal plain that nobody will ever visit or see?<<
Well, ironic, I suppose, if THAT’s your definition of a wasteland. Unpopular camp, really. Wild Alaska, I would argue, is a vitally important resource… to the freedom-yearning American psyche.
But to wind, the “Pickens wind corridor plan” would seem to make a lot more sense than the pillage-every-peak prognosis. Wind development on the high prairie would seem to be a compatible use for an already developed, utilitarian landscape; it would have no net negative effect on agricultural productivity of the region - rather, it could actually help growers and consumers alike by displacing the use of food crops for fuel ethanol production (by freeing up natural gas for automobile use, per the plan); and it’s a perfect match for - if not an antidote to - the “Plains Drain” demographic phenomenon and associated economic hardship.
But can we avoid Gold Rush fever in our quest to develop alternative energy sources? Isn’t that the rub?
blisterfree
My views of Alaskan oil are indeed unpopular on this forum. However, they are informed views. The COASTAL PLAIN is most certainly a wasteland. The proposed drilling site is not the mountainous paradise typically depicted. I have collegues who have been there and I have seen their photos. There is no logical reason not to develop that area for it’s rich energy resources. The reasons not to drill are emotional and irrational, at best, and politically sinister, at worst.
I agree with your assessment on wind. But it is not without its costs and trade offs. And it will bring on a gold rush, as noted in the CNN article, for anyone with a little extra land that just happens to catch the wind. Kinda like cell towers but on a grander, uglier scale.
On other energy sources - they are all viable but not practical near term. Like it or not, the world runs on OIL today. Every single oil rich nation in the world fully supports and subsidizes its oil industry. And most do it without real regard to environment concerns. We punish ours. Our big bad oil companies are the most efficient and environmentally sensitive in the world. (And our EPA far outclasses its global counterparts. Do they even have one in Russia?) Yet we make it nearly impossible for them to do what they do best (explore, mine, and refine) and then chastize them for the profits they make (but not the taxes they pay)in what is essentially a world distribution business.
Lady Treehugger
The reasons not to drill are emotional and irrational, at best, and politically sinister, at worst.<<
Eh, but ‘emotional’ and ‘irrational’ are an integral part of what makes us human. Without those qualifiers, we’re no better than the machines we invent. Of a truth, the arguments in favor of drilling can be seen as equally irrational when taking the long-term, resource-sustainable view. Both positions are entirely subjective; espousing one view or the other is simply to cloak one’s emotional perspective with the armor of cleverly-devised logic. Is our world view one of anthropocentrism or biocentrism? If the former, then we tend to dismiss what we see as emotional arguments in favor of the latter (eg, no drilling in ANWR), and vice versa (eg, the American standard of living must come first, etc.).
“Politically sinister” practically oozes with emotion, doesn’t it?
blisterfree
Get ready for a negative propaganda blitz aimed at “BIG WIND” (demonizing the competition). You see, wind power is interfering with the sale of developing the “wasteland” of the Coastal Plain of ANWR. We can develope huge amounts of alternate energy sources in the time it will take to get what many scientist predict will be of little relevance on the national level and probably none on the global level. That gives all of us a pause to perhaps rethink our positions on drilling, particularly those that are leaning in support of drilling. If we can get the same amount of energy from wind, why mess up the wilderness? Maybe it’s best we go for this alternative energy stuff and back off being dependent on oil.
Propaganda 101, ‘even the biggest lie will be believed if you say it enough’. “The area of proposed drilling in ANWR is a vast wasteland”. People see photo’s of the frozen tundra, or even photo’s taken in the summer of a vast flat marsh like area and begin to think “waste land”. It is the duty and responsibility of patriotic and responsible Americans to answer this propaganda. So for the record…the section of proposed drilling is far from being a wasteland. It is in fact an important element in the overall health of ANWR. Of the 195 speciies of birds that are part of ANWR, 130 of those species either nest, feed, breed on, or, close to the shore. The area is also used by walrus, several species of seals, boehead whales, grey whales and beluga whales. The list of wildlife that would be effected goes on, not to mention the fish and vegetation. All of these could be decimated with one, single solitary Exxon Valdez sized accident. The ecosystem of the tundra is part of the integrated ecosystems of ANWR.
Bob
Yes, Blisterfree, as humans we are blessed with the ability and the free will to either think with the head or think with the heart. The real trick is in knowing when to do which.
And Bob, if your point of view had existed over the last 200 years no trees would have been cut down to build this country; no coal would have been mined to heat it; no dams would have been built to prevent flooding it; the industrial revolution would not have been allowed to happen! The ONLY alternative source that can significantly impact global (not just American) need is nuclear. Yet wacko environmentalism has retarded its use. Just remember this, environmentalism (especially the man-made global warming sect) as we see it today is a religion - a fervent belief in something that nobody can prove and that exists for the sole purpose of molding and controlling those who desperately WANT to believe it. Your Propaganda 101? Without a doubt.
Lady Treehugger