Commentary
It’s summer, the ACs are cranking, SUVs are loaded, and families are hitting the road for beaches, forests, mountains, and National Parks. Thanks to our unique history of conservation and a culture of preservation, Americans have, for many decades, taken for granted their access to natural beauty. Reverence, even love, of that natural beauty is epitomized by our country’s 400 National Parks,
hundreds of miles of protected coasts, and
800 million acres of forest, only 40 percent of which fall under government management.
Organizations such as
Save the Bay and
thousands more founded by concerned citizens champion habitat restoration and protection. Indeed, such was the very foundation of the modern environmental movement spawning nonprofits that advocate for policy, educate, install oyster beds, guard sea turtles, clean woodlands, “save the whales,” remind drone operators about the negative effects of unmanned vehicles on wildlife, and, of course, constrain or prevent drilling and mining projects to preserve species and habitats.
But now, the environmental movement is at odds with itself. The movement’s full-throated embrace of so-called green energy, successfully amplified by unprecedented government mandates and subsidies, is leading to habitat-invading and beauty-destroying energy projects at scales that rankle not only onlookers but also those environmentalists still committed to stewardship and conservation—and would shock the founders of the preservation movement.
These so-called green technologies, useful in generating intermittent power in discrete conditions and geographies, not only affect the visual environment but also have as yet unknown effects on our environment when deployed at scale. However, we are starting to get some indications.
Scientists are still studying the effects of massive off-shore wind installations on
sea temperatures and
marine life. Only now are some communities and environmental groups coming to terms with the monumental scale of non-recyclable plastic blade trash on the horizon as those turbines age out.
Just last month at Vineyard Wind, a partial blade from a single Eiffel Tower-sized wind turbine failed, dropped into the ocean, and necessitated several beach closures. Add to this other newly discovered consequences such as, for example, studies showing that massive solar installations often proposed for
the Sahara Desert would contribute to higher global temperatures. We also know
large-scale solar installations cause loss of habitat, confuse birds, drive runoff, pollute waterways, degrade soil health, and disrupt animal migration.
Despite ample evidence that we should proceed with caution regarding industrial-scale deployment of land-invading green energy, the Inflation Reduction Act promises trillions to subsidize such projects. So-called green energy, with the notable exception of nuclear, is—from mine to deployment—extraordinarily land- and resource-intensive. Some environmental groups are beginning to raise
alarms about both deep sea mining and expanding conventional mining for the vast quantities of critical materials needed for aggressive electrification and large-scale solar and wind projects.
In the 100 years since modern environmental conservation began, we have become increasingly more efficient in the resources and land we use to supply energy. But now, “green” energy policies come at the expense of far greater land and water use. “Green” policies also ignore increased foreign resource dependence and environmental effects overseas. The production of useful energy, which drives economic productivity, is always about tradeoffs. Americans are unlikely to tolerate increasingly obvious “green” tradeoffs.
A future with denser, cleaner urban footprints that preserve natural habitats requires that we continue to decrease the natural resources and land we consume,
particularly with our population predicted to peak anywhere from 20 to 60 years from now. In addition to affordable cars, air conditioners, and smartphones, virtually all Americans want clean air and abundant, biodiverse seas and wide-open spaces our 19th-century forebearers helped to realize. You can bet future generations will too. It’s in our nature. And our energy policies and choices should reflect that.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
