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.

Conundrum

On Tuesday, poor planning left me having to ride the bus home from work.  It was a twenty minute reminder of why I switched from public transit to bike commuting.  I'll take rain, road grit and hostile drivers over the smell of wet wool and cheap whiskey any day of the week.

I did remember to come armed with protection, a barrier between me and the bus people:  a newspaper and my iPod.

The lead story in Tuesday's Oregonian was about parents that were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Their religious beliefs kept them from seeking medical treatment for their teenage son, who suffered from, in the words of the prosecution, "a treatable condition."  They instead trusted that their own faith would heal their child.  Tragically, they were wrong.

Here is the first paragraph of the article:

"A Clackamas County jury sent a clear signal Tuesday that parents who rely solely on faith healing to treat their children face prison if a child dies."

I am not sure this is the sort of precedent that should be set.  I'm not a religious person,  and by no means am I suggesting the death of a child is ever acceptable.   However, I do think  that if, as a society, we truly value freedom of religion, we have to think long and hard before condoning wholesale judicial solutions that interfere with deeply personal decisions of faith and medical care.

I'm not familiar with the individual details of this trial.  Perhaps the guilty verdict was justified in this case by facts above and beyond the religious beliefs of the defendants  But I see two significant problems with the mindset reflected in the Oregonian's article.

In law school, one of the oft-overused phrases in constitutional law and jurisprudence classes is "slippery slope."  It is a belief in the snowball effect of one bad decision, that a minor interference with civil rights will  justify larger interferences, which in turn will justify even larger interferences.  In this case, the concern is that this verdict could be used as justification to interfere with parental decision-making on non-life-or-death issues or to prosecute parents that choose to use Eastern medicine to unsuccessfully treat a sick child.

The second danger of the verdict is its power to frighten people into participating in the mainstream, Western, Christianized health care system, even when that system directly conflicts with their own spiritual and cultural beliefs. 

This tragedy now has my attention now, and I'll be watching the sentencing and appeals process closely.

If you are interested in more commentary on the American legal system, this time on the utility of jury trials,  check out this great article from this month's Portland Monthly.

Launch

So here it is. The place where I promise not to talk about biking. If you want to hear about biking, go here.

If you want to read about some other, much more interesting, stuff, keep going.

Balance:

My big thing for 2010 is Balance. I am, as the Mexican puts it, REALLY F$@!ING INTENSE. I find something I like (bike racing, Swedish mystery novels, eating entire bags of coconut flakes while watching basketball), it becomes all consuming. As a result, I get really good at one thing at the expense of almost everything else in my life.

I guess I do have to talk about cycling. Just for a moment. For the last four years, my life has revolved around training for some sort of endurance event. I started out as a triathlete, then moved into bike racing two years ago when I hurt my shoulder and decided, as a general rule, that running sucks. Turns out I am a pretty good bike racer. So, for almost two years, my life revolved around bike racing.

Several things happened that made me realize that this was not a sustainable life strategy.

First, because I don't get paid to race my bike, I have to hold down a civilian job. Currently, I make my living as a lawyer. Law school seemed like a good idea at the time. But here I am, six years later, pretty much unsatisfied by the life that I live from 8-5, Monday through Friday. That lack of satisfaction became paralyzing. Amateur bike racing is a good distraction. but it is only that: a distraction. Changes need to be made.

Second, while out just looking to get laid, I ran head first into the person that I plan on spending a lot of time with for the foreseeable future. As he graciously pointed out to me a few days go, my professional and spiritual ennui is not just about me anymore, it is also about how it effects this other person in my life. Guilt immediately ensued and I realized that by not getting my shit together, I could be jeopardizing this relationship.

Third, I really need to practice writing something other than race reports.

So I am going to try my hand at writing about:

Beats: I love music. I am not musical and will never impress anyone with my knowledge of the origins of garage punk in the 1990s. However, like most people that have seen "Garden State," I am constantly cultivating a soundtrack in my head. Try Track 1 on The XX album for commuting in the rain.

Books: I also love to read. My taste is all over the map. I am currently finishing the English translation of "Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" and Chris Carmichael's "The Time-Crunched Cyclist." And will attempt to write about both of them, coherently, here.

Booze: This encompasses both my love for a good drink and the never-ending quest for excellent nachos.

And all the rest of the BS. Like how Portlanders are insane about their dogs. Or when I mess with people's sense of space in elevators. Or why I shouldn't have eaten that entire bag of coconut flakes.