Clean Air, Clean Water

As you read this post, the Gulf Oil Spill grows worse and worse. Even in the wake of this disaster Big Oil seeks changes to many federal laws which will weaken air and water protection policies.

While both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act have their shortcomings, it is clearly not time to dismantle either of them. Rather, it is time to call upon Congress to fix the problems and strengthen these two critical pieces of legislation.

The Clean Air Act is currently under attack. Oil and coal interests are pushing to weaken the act in the name of "national security." While gaining access to our resources may be important to "national security" the resources we seek to harness needs to be in the best interest of all citizens of the country. Rather than changing laws to ignore the external costs of oil and coal, we need to recognize and properly price these external costs. Only when we recognize full cradle to grave costs, will we see our abundent, clean energy sources as clearly being superior to increased reliance on oil and coal.

Follow the link and join Repower America in pushing for a new energy future.

Oil? Wind?

Last week Cape Wind passed a major hurdle. No sooner had it cleared that hurdle than a number of opposing voices came forward pushing for legal challenges.

We are all also reading about this massive oil spill in the Gulf. Most recent analysis suggests that this spill now exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill. All the while the spill continues to flow.

The opposition to Cape Wind comes from many angles. One is the potential impact of these platforms on sea life.

Dead turtles and other sea life have started to wash up along the Gulf Coast from the current oil spill. Reports are that if the slick is caught up into the Gulf Stream Current the spill will move out of the Gulf and into the Atlantic.

Cape Wind is reported to "occupy" 25 square miles. Of this, about 54 acres will be truly physically occupied.

The 1975 "Florida" oil spill in Buzzards Bay impacted 5,000 acres of ocean bottom and 500 acres of marsh. These areas illustrated "95% of the animals collected were dead." The more recent "Bouchard 120" spill impacted 90 miles of shore line.

So, why are these planning issues? The reasons are clearly many. First, economically, as many have stated, we need economic independence. Yes, more oil development can provide that, but at what cost? Is it appropriate for other entire industries to be injured when a large or small spill occurs? How will the fishing industry cope in the Gulf? How about the vacation industry when pristine white beaches are spoiled by oil?

Wind may not be as economical (in direct costs) as oil. But environmentally, it appears more sound. When oil starts to pay for society's costs (air pollution, water pollution, health issues due to smog) the two energy sources start to balance out.

Cape Wind, on-shore wind farms, solar farms, geo-thermal all need to be part of our future.

Of course, to ensure clean energy meets "clean" standards, we also need to ensure that these facilities are manufactured within the US as our environmental control standards for manufacturing exceeds those found anywhere else.

Perhaps We Need a New Approach

Recently the Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee denied the erection of a wind turbine at Cape Cod Community College. This action was not an isolated incident as there are examples of similar actions across the country in historic areas. Some states have even taken to stripping historical commissions of their authority to review wind and solar installations.

Perhaps, proponents of wind and solar need to pursue a new approach. The National Park Service, among many others, has raised concerns about the impacts of acid rain on historic structure, What are we doing about acid rain?

Perhaps, we need to pursue this angle. We have focused much of our discussions on the energy savings - and dollar amount - saved by entities seeking to use solar and wind in historic areas. It might be time to quantify the savings in tons of pollutants removed, reductions in acid rain producing compounds in the environment.

As planners we might want to direct our historic committee members to read a few of the documents that are out there on the impacts of acid rain, such as Acid Rain and Our Nation's Capital which discusses the impacts of acid rain on limestone and granite buildings. We need to direct them to the impacts on homes, Acid Rain's Effect on Your Home, to illustrate the increase in maintenance costs, costs which can be quite extensive on historic properties. We need to point out, ultimately, that acid rain is directly related to fossil fuel burning for electricity.

We need to point out that, for every megawatt of energy produced by a wind or solar installation, 20 tons of sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide (the two leading contributors to acid rain) are avoided.

Finally, we need to point out that the same chemicals which cause acid rain also produce smog and haze, ruining most peoples views of our lovely part of the world.

Perhaps this approach needs to be explored prior to stripping historical commissions of some of their review powers.

On The Front Lines Of Being Green

We are all looking for ways to save on our energy bills. Sometimes all we need to do is to look to our past. How many of us remember fresh sheets or towels straight off the clothesline? Who would have thought these simple devices would wind up defining the battlefield over being green, energy savings, and property rights? The following articles from the NY times provides a little enlightenment:

Debate Follows Bills to Remove Clotheslines Bans

A Line in the Yard: The Battle Over the Right to Dry Outside

Recently, local energy companies have challenged us to reduce our energy use by 3%. Given both these aticles suggest that dryers consume 6% of household energy use, line drying would make this an easy to accomplish goal.

For years homeowners associations have been trying to enforce uniformity, establishing prohibitions on clotheslines, placing requirements on lawn cutting, etc. They see it as "protecting property rights." But whose rights are they protecting? In establishing these "protections" they are trampling all over the rights of individual property owners.

Clotheslines are just one restriction. Many also restrict solar panels and other energy savings devices that may change the look of the outside of the home. It is clearly time for homeowners associations to realize that the "rights" they are protecting are actually infringements on the rights of many.