The Wind, How She Blows.

I'm going to start off this post with this disclaimer:  the following post pertains to the industry  that I practice law within, but these opinions are my own.  I have no idea what my colleagues' or clients' positions are, and my guess is that they don't care what mine is--that is, as long as I'm getting my work done. 

First, read this editorial from today's Oregonian. 

Call it the Paradox of Power Production.  We all want electricity.  Need it.  Crave it.  For most of us, our current standard of living would be impossible without it.   We want it cheap. We want it green. (By "green," I am primarily thinking of wind, solar and hydrokinetic power.  I'm not touching dams with a ten-foot pole.)

But we also want its production to be invisible. Herein lies the problem.

Green power is not end-all solution to meeting the energy needs of a growing population.  You can't make the wind blow or the sun shine at peak hours.  As long as we want immediate access to safe and reliable electricity during every hour of every day, there will always be a need for firm capacity fueled by gas, coal or nuclear resources.  (Firm is a term of art in the energy industry.  Firm capacity is the amount of energy available for production or transmission which is guaranteed to be available at a given time.)

But green power is an integral part of reducing our reliance on the firm resources that negatively impact our air, soil and water quality.

From a production standpoint, many of the "best" (a.k.a. "cheapest," "most efficient") places to produce green power are places of great natural beauty:  gorges, coastlines, mountain slopes.  These are places where the wind can blow, the sun shine or the water flow with minimal intrusion from other man-made structures.

These places are tend to be remote.  Which means that even if you can build a generation structure that doesn't alter the natural skyline, the structures needed to transport that power will.

Green power is a trade-off.  If we want to improve the physical quality of the environment by reducing our reliance on "brown" power, we have to accept that some changes to scenic quality are inevitable. 

The second thought I had while reading this article was "environmental classism." I think I was introduced to this concept in college as "environmental racism," but since Oregon is mostly a  melting pot of different variations of white people, I think "classism" more accurately describes what was bothering me.

Traditionally, "brown" power resources are located closer to population centers.  And, frequently, in less affluent population centers seeking an economic boost.  So, ultimately, it is the middle-class and poor that often bear the greater burden of the harmful environmental impacts of that type "brown" generation.  We, as a society, are fine with this because we don't have to hear about it, even though it affects basic quality of life for a large number of other human beings.  Lots of people, no money, no voice.

Conversely, the uproar caused by a handful of people with good views and many dollars can stop green energy projects in their tracks.

I have a huge problem with the short-sightedness of many in the NIMBY/visual pollution camp.   It is the  "Protect Our Oregon" war cry without the recognition that Oregon also belongs to everyone else as well. It reminds me of a public meeting I once attended as part of my job.  The topic was the development of hydrokinetic generation resources off of the Oregon Coast. 

Those supporting the project talk of economic development and revitalization of communities that have been decimated by the decline of the timber, farming and fishing industries.  These men have spent most of their lives outside.  They are more in tune with the natural environment that I will ever be.  They want jobs, but they also want to protect the fisheries and inflict minimal intrusion on the small, but growing, tourist trade.  They are pragmatic. 

Then there is the Ralph Lauren-clad man kvetching about the property values of his vacation home being ruined. He is loud, condescending and uses the term "catastrophic depreciation." His wife spends most of the meeting looking bored, sighing loudly and clacking her nails on an iPhone  They speed away from the meeting in a new SUV.

It was almost too much to bear.