By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
Tilting at Windmills
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 17 February 2005 · Energy
Environmental sage Bill McKibben is upset that more environmentalists don't really support wind power. Sure, national environmental groups talk about the importance of wind as an alternative energy source, but green groups nonetheless oppose many of the wind farm proposals that are actually put on the table, such as the plan to put wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. In part, wind power has failed to take hold because environmentalists, particularly in the crowded East, haven't come to terms with this technology. In fights in Cape Cod, the mountains of Vermont, and the ridgelines of Maryland, they've divided into bitter factions over almost every turbine proposal. On one side, national environmental groups like Greenpeace have backed many installations, arguing that the dangers of global warming far outweigh any local effects. On the other side, neighbors of proposed wind farms have joined with local chapters of big conservation groups to fight the Statue-of-Liberty-size windmills on environmental grounds, chiefly arguing that they'll destroy the scenic beauty of their areas.Such environmental impacts are real, McKibben argues, but must be compared with the environmental impacts of the alternatives. Or, as GristMill's Dave Roberts puts it: If environmentalists take global warming seriously, and expect others to take it seriously, maybe they shouldn't become bitchy provincialists the minute you want to build a wind turbine that impedes the scenic view off the back porches of their vacation homes.This just goes to show that all energy sources have environmental impacts, and there is no free lunch. McKibben also attributes the failure of wind power to the policies of the Bush Administration. Here is where McKibben's analysis is much less clear. He cannot simultaneouly maintain (as he does) that wind power is "cost-competitive with fossil fuels," and yet is faltering, in part, due "scant government support for renewable energy." If wind power were truly cost-competitive -- and I am skeptical that it is -- then it does not need government support. McKibben can't have it both ways. Speaking of alternative energy sources, Lynne Keisling has some interesting observations on alternative energy sources, including wave power, here.
|