Sometimes the products of technology and infrastructure have a certain beauty that compliments their functional necessity, but all too often our aversion to the appearance of key service components conflicts with our desire for their services to be readily available. Renewable energy production, such as wind turbines and solar power stations, are increasingly becoming the targets of backlash, even from environmental supporters, when it comes time to locate them. A new strategy for overcoming the next generation of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment is imperative to avoid our recent progress in sustainability from hitting a wall.
Polling from numerous sources repeatedly points to a growing population of U.S. citizens supporting the need to address climate change and transfer our production of energy to renewable sources. People will sign petitions, click “yes” on websites and maybe even call their Congressman in support of green energy. But in true American style, when it comes to actually implementing the goal the discussion turns into a barrage of finger-pointing with no one wanting to have to look at the finished product.
The lack of willingness to actively participate in the necessities of society is one of our blaring moments of shortsightedness. As a country that enjoys an elevated standard of living, its rise has been paralleled not only by an increasingly complex and expansive array of technology necessary to sustain it, but also a lack of responsibility for making it possible. Having a water treatment facility within a block from your home is a fallacy, but blame is thrown instantly at the onset of an E. coli breakout. No one wants to see high voltage power lines but brownouts are unacceptable.
One of the more famous examples is the repeated stalling of the Cape Wind Project that meant to erect 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound with a maximum capacity of 420MW. The program claims that in average winds the wind farm could provide 75% of the energy for Cape Cod and its surrounding islands. However, local residents have opposed the project due to the possibility of tarnishing their ocean view. Keep in mind that the wind turbines will be 5 to 13 miles from shore so that an onlooker could reportedly extend an arm and cover one with the fingernail on a thumb.
Unsurprisingly, continuously pushing renewables to the outskirts of society increases the amount of transmission (materials, land, installation, maintenance, replacement) needed to transport the power, increasing the amount of power lost in transit and raising the price of the power that gets there (which in turn compounds the problem.) Heaven forbid we need to pay more for power that is more sustainable and less polluting. Who would think that in a capitalistic economy the cheapest solution is not always the best?
One option is to give the federal government more power in making decisions for renewable energy sites and new transmission lines, but the prospect of increased government intervention is already causing politicians to butt heads on the Climate Bill. Another option is to use government policy that sweetens the deal for proximity to new energy solutions. (For Liberals, this would mean tax people the farther they get from renewable energy. For Conservatives, it would mean provide subsidies for those willing to live next door. For me, I would say do both.)
Yet another possibility is to redesign these facilities for a new aesthetic reading. After all, most of the time these components of infrastructure are designed by engineers. As an architect, I can respect and appreciate the simplicity and functional efficiency of how engineers design. Their goal of streamlined products that serve a specified purpose can be seen in old warehouses, factories and power stations. Nonetheless, they are usually not trying to win beauty contests. Some of these creations could not get a facelift to draw a different impression from surrounding onlookers.
Spanish architecture firm Abalos and Herreros has a portfolio of work that has reinvestigated the appearance and nature of industrial programs like their recycling center in Valdemingómez, Spain. Contrary to the American standard of cheap metal siding and standing seam roofs, their facility is wrought with light to illuminate a terraced interior designed with an elegant order for industrial function. Solar farms and biomass plants could conceivably be realized in a second generation that is more viewer-friendly.
I do not believe that the largest impediment in the path of environmental stewards is convincing people that changes should be made. Regardless of the debate on climate change, sustainability and efficiency just make sense. Preserving our resources, keeping our air, water and land clean; it is just smart and more people realize that everyday. The impasse is instilling not the notion, but the drive for everyone to contribute and accept part of the collective onus to change—and make no mistake, things will need to change. Sustainability is not a technological fix. Our levels of consumption cannot be supplemented with gizmos.
Personally, I think that wind turbines and CSP plants have their own manner of beauty to them, like an ipod or a 40” Samsung LCD television, but I do not know if my sentiment has reached the majority yet.
Photo Credit: Flickr via AbracaDebra
September 8, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Unfortunately this is very true, but then again where there are people with the right to fight for renewables, there are people with the right to fight to preserve their homes, as they see fit.
Personally, I like wind turbines, and I’d quite happily live near a farm. Would I think twice if it were an area of outstanding national beauty? Maybe.
I think you’ll enjoy this: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_108.shtml
Pages 108 to 112 are exactly about this. Page 110 features a map of regions of the UK which are too close to settlements and too far away (and thus “tranquil”) and not suitable for wind turbines. It is meant to be a joke, yes!
Thanks for sharing!
September 8, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Michael, thanks for your comment. I like the site very much. It is a great graphic representation of the corner that we continue to back ourselves into. I also like the bar charts plotting the energy we use and how renewable energy “could” supplement that if only for our lack of objections.
I agree that there should be limits to placement of renewables–let us not fill the Grand Canyon with water and use it for power storage and we probably do not need to put an off shore wind farm in the Great Barrier Reef. But at the same time, we all know that natural environments are beautiful and theoretically some of the purpose of mastering renewable power is to stop damaging that beauty. Like most things, it is a question of balance but I feel like we are a ways away from achieving an appropriate level of compromise.
September 9, 2009 at 6:18 am
Oh I agree entirely: compromises will have to be made and some people will have to put up with outcomes they may not like. If every decision on energy comes after a public enquiry, we’ll get nothing done. There’s always at least one annoyed pressure group for every decision, it seems.
But how do you get around that in a democracy? You can’t remove the right of the people to complain (and in the UK, complaining is almost a God-given right…) and protest. Similarly you can’t listen to the protests and then ignore it completely, or you’ll be voted out at the next general election.
It’s sad, but I cannot see a way around this, short of giving up on obtrusive renewable energy altogether. Or becoming a dictatorship…
September 9, 2009 at 12:20 pm
It is an impasse we encounter all too often and in the U.S., it is the conservative wild card. Anything that removes or even limits the right of free choice can be challenged as invading the foundations of democracy, but in the end, I do not buy it for two reasons. The first is that part of the governments position is to remained informed and educated about things that the citizens do not. We elect our officials to know how the government works so we don’t have to. They should know how to clean up environmental hazards, build and upkeep mass transit, send shuttles into space, continually study the laws of the country and how they pertain to the current generation of citizens. Most Americans (and Britons) do not think about all these things everyday, but moreover, they do not want to and in my mind intentional ignorance means that you are giving up your voice at the table. Does this leave the government with power? Yes, that is hopefully used wisely which is why we have a democracy. But is it imperfect? Of course, which brings me to my second point.
We have this tendency to hold these governmental and economic systems (democracy and capitalism) up on a pedestal and constantly refer back to them as ideals that could operate in perfection. In the end, there is no perfect system. There cannot be entirely free markets without any oversight or regulation and there cannot be democracy without any government intervention or guidance, nor is this a new concept for the U.S.. We will continue to make mistakes and we will continue to learn but in the end, we need to make some decisions that put us on a better path towards sustainability because we can sit around and argue forever (and half the people that are arguing do not know enough to be legitimate contributors in the first place.)
September 9, 2009 at 1:13 pm
An interesting perspective; I certainly would agree that a certain amount of decision making should be left with the government. The people protesting are usually in possession of all the knowledge and experience necessary to make the decision, and focus solely on one narrow aspect of the situation to make their points.
“We don’t want wind turbines in our valleys”
“Fair enough, then where do you suggest we put them?”
“Oh we don’t know about that, as long as it isn’t here.”
That said, I’m not sure whether I do trust my government to make the right decisions. Their record on energy has been anything but stellar. That may be because they do frequently bow to minority pressure, though. Perhaps we should set up a pressure group to pressure the government into ignoring other pressure groups?
As you said, we elect our leaders to make the decisions for us, as we cannot know everything relevant whilst also getting on with our lives: that’s why their job is knowing such things. However, that is a double-edged sword. They know that we elect them, so politicians at least will generally do what will get them re-elected, which by definition is bowing to public pressure. And if they always do as we ask, can they really be blamed?
To quote from page 111 of the book I linked to
“Some of these environmentalists who have good hearts but confused minds are almost a barrier to tackling climate change.”
As an aside, I’d like to take this opportunity to say how much I love the internet: I was made aware of your post by Google Alerts. I haven’t read any of your other posts, nor do I know anything about who you are, and yet here we are having a conversation about the important issues. Fantastic.
September 9, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I think that the government is the system that we have ratified as how we want to approach problems and if one cannot trust the government to make good choices then new people should be elected. I do not think much of anything can be accomplished with an “us vs. them” mentality, though I know it is easy to adopt.
I agree about the double-edged sword of ‘career politicians’. It makes me wonder if we should have more limits on terms of service. A good colleague of mine often points to a time in America’s past where being a politician was considered a service… a temporary post that would be occupied, served, then finally relinquished to return back to your farm or former business. If politicians cared less about re-election and more about impact, it could make for better results.
Your quote rings true as well. I would lump confused minds in with my general category of “ignorance.” To lobby for wind turbines without knowing their limitations can be positive in the short term, but ultimately detrimental.
Cheers to the world wide web, certainly. This is really one of the top reasons I like to write, to stimulate discussions. I would welcome your views on other writings and have subscribed to the RSS feed for the blog on the site you are a part of.
September 9, 2009 at 2:00 pm
What a wonderful idea, that politicians should be doing a public service. Being a politician these days is just another career, I fear. Without the need for re-election, they may do what’s best for the country rather than what’s best for them. Certainly, I intend to get heavily involved in energy, but as an advisor rather than a politician, to avoid such problems.
I have subscribed to your blog also, and will check back regularly. Thanks for the intelligent discussion! Regarding my website, the blog at blog.howtopowertheworld.com is the traditional blog style – the rest is static articles and not yet comment-able.
Michael