Local communities ought to have the right of economic self-determination, which means the right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any project, including “green” projects, like wind turbines. The state and for-profit corporations and others can propose, but it should be wholly up to municipalities to dispose. Local municipalities should also have the right to develop new energy technologies as forms of community-based municipal power instead of allowing state agencies and for-profit corporations to call the tune and make the money. Jessica Vecchione writes in The Daily Star (5/12/06) that “Wind energy does not address the problem of oil consumption in the United States.” She adds that “electrical plants are mainly powered by coal and natural gas.” But it’s not just about oil; it’s about fossil fuels and CO2 and global warming. According to an NPR report, more CO2 pollution in the U.S. comes from coal-fired electric power plants than from all the fossil-fuel powered vehicles combined. Until better forms of non-CO2 emitting energy (solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.) are developed, we will and should have more wind energy sources to generate electricity. Vecchione also states that “proposed wind energy projects will not lower electric costs. They will only help fill a shortfall...as demand increases.” But that’s not an argument against wind towers. It’s an argument against our continued use of polluting energy sources. The conclusion instead would seem to be that we need more, not fewer, wind towers and other clean non-CO2 emitting sources of energy. Europeans are talking about a vast continental grid linking off-shore wind towers from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, where enough wind will always be blowing somewhere to feed power steadily to the grid. Wind energy projects should be sited off-shore or in remote areas. If municipalities could vote such projects up or down, that’s probably what would happen. Adrian Kuzminski Fly Creek
|