Sunday, June 12, 2005
Editorial: Twisting in the wind over energy
The windmill proposal dividing Highland County presents a tiny piece of a much larger problem: America lacks a sensible, realistic energy policy.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
His proposal to plant electricity-generating wind turbines atop Alleghany Mountain in Highland County is just the kind of private-sector investment the Bush administration smiles upon: Weaken environmental protections, cut taxes, offer subsidies and reduce regulation, and - it hopes - domestic production will reduce the nation's dependence on imported energy. Better still, windmills have neither the polluting emissions of fossil fuels nor the deadly waste of nuclear plants. And Highland County could collect as much as $250,000 a year in tax revenue to boot.
But McBride's 18 to 20 turbines would contribute a minuscule 39 megawatts of electricity to the nation's supply and have their own environmental and economic drawbacks: Standing 400 feet tall, they would threaten birds and other wildlife and spoil some of the natural beauty that is one of Highland County's chief assets.
And then there's the angry split his project has created among usually neighborly residents.
Sparsely populated, rural Highland County may be excused if it struggles to make a decision. With far more time and far more at stake, the Bush administration and Congress have done no better on national energy policy.
The United States, by far the world's largest consumer, faces more than rising competition and soaring prices for finite supplies of oil and natural gas. Political unrest and terrorism in producer countries are a continual threat to the supply line on which America's economy and security now depend.
Pollution and global warming produced by burning fossil fuels are continuing threats to public health and the environment.
Washington's response so far suggests it believes America can produce its way out of trouble by opening protected shorelines and wildlife refuges to oil and gas exploitation, building new nuclear plants and burning more coal. Not coincidentally, that meshes perfectly with the interests of powerful energy industries.
Meanwhile, conservation and alternative, renewable sources get short shrift.
Security hawks and environmental doves alike see an unattainable goal and unacceptable dangers. The United States, they say correctly, needs an aggressive, government-supported, globally cooperative drive to improve efficiency, conserve and develop cleaner energy technologies and sustainable, nondestructive sources.
With sound energy policies, America might not have to consider defiling its mountaintops for a few megawatts of electricity.
