It seems that politicians of every stripe have a new buzzword to abuse. Preface any project or technology with the word *renewable* and it is almost guaranteed to generate automatic public support and popularity – even though it is invariably linked to some handout for big corporate interests. Coincidence? I think not. It reflects the covert stranglehold that corporate interests have gained over our political process. Powerful lobby groups representing private interest sectors are the primary beneficiaries of such policy, rather than the public interest.
How renewable is bioethanol from corn going to be when our aquifers are exhausted, not just from growing corn where it should not be grown, but from distilling the ethanol to obtain a fraction of the energy expended in its production? How renewable is our farmland going to be when thousands of acres of prairie are fragmented by access roads, power lines and turbine foundations? How renewable is our precious rural ecology going to be when soil profiles are disrupted, native plant ecosystems damaged, and wildlife driven off by the noise and intrusion of monstrous wind turbines?
Corporate lip service to environmental responsibility is, by and large, superficial and increasingly used in a gratuitous manner to distract from a singular underlying corporate purpose – profit generation. Phony solutions like wind power and bioethanol are not just a waste of taxpayer resources, they lull the public into a false sense of security that their elected representatives are actually doing something about the environment when they are really making things worse. These are very shortsighted distractions that detract from investment in real long-term solutions – solutions that will not necessarily benefit corporations seeking to preserve current profitability.
Why does investment in long-term solutions get such short shrift when it comes to public investment and political will? Because politicians need to point to accomplishments that made a difference within their term of office in order to get re-elected, they are easily seduced into promoting technologies that benefit existing corporate interests even though they destroy the environment in the name of saving it. It is much easier to manipulate public perceptions with 10-second sound bites that include the words *renewable energy* than it is to push public investment toward conservation measures or investment in truly sustainable energy alternatives that have time horizons of 10-15 years or more. Enron was quick to recognize this opportunity and it should not go unnoticed that they were the corporation to jump-start the great American wind energy fraud.
Although Republicans have been adept at convincing their followers to expect less, rather than more, from government in terms of regulating corporate greed, Democrats risk making matters worse with a seemingly blind, unconditional promotion of all things renewable if they remain willfully oblivious to the obvious environmental impacts. Even self-proclaimed tree-huggers in the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have been duped into supporting the logging of thousands of trees on America’s most pristine ridgelines to make space for a few wind turbines (ironic, isn't it?). They have been suckered by the corporate greenwash and have lost all credibility as environmentalists in the community of real ecologists of which I am a part. It remains to be seen who will now come forward to save rural America, pull the sheepskin off these corporate wolves flogging renewable frauds, and slay their political ‘shepherds’.












Comments (2)
J.P.,
Nicely done! I agree with your underlying premise about ecological impacts and your position on ethanol. Ethanol drains the water we don't have in Kansas.
However, I have to disagree with you on wind power. What renewable energy source doesn't have some sort of ecological impact? It seems to me that the argument is little non-unique.
Coal pollutes the air, biofuel sucks off the land, solar takes up beautiful green space, hydroelectric makes rivers ugly, and wind makes the beautiful Kansas skyline look a little awkward.
I admit I felt a little conflicted when I saw the large wind turbines in the beautiful western Kansas skyline. And after visiting a solar farm, I was happy to see the energy flowing...but I again felt conflicted because it spanned a long distance into beautiful prairie. I guess I am going to have to stomach that feeling with the understanding that these are the best forms of energy for the long-term.
Anyway, enough blabbing - nice post!!!!
Posted by Buck Kramer
|
May 4, 2008 11:47 AM
Posted on May 4, 2008 11:47
I agree with everything that has been said but find the adjective "awkward" lacking in the description of a once beautiful skyline now littered with windscrapers.
Nauseating, would seem to work better, kind of like being on planet Zeon without a sense of direction or a glimpse of hope of ever returning to reality.
If you look across America you'll see that we are very adept at abandoning machinery. The salvage value versus take down costs on windscrapers will surely lead to many massive junk yards.
A true environmentalist would want to leave the earth as they found it. Planting a billion tons of concrete and leaving piles of giant tinker toy pieces scattered about rusting in the wind isn't much of an environmental legacy.
Despite all the current functioning farms and no new coal electrical plants the use of coal to generate electricity in the U.S. rose 1.9% in 2007.
It would appear that we need a million more farms taking up every square foot of this country. But, considering the mechanics of coal plants that wouldn't lower the use either.
Or, we could take the black hats off the coal guys let them back on the playground and support them financially and intellectually to find a logical solution to our energy problem.
Posted by Will Campbell
|
May 7, 2008 3:51 AM
Posted on May 7, 2008 03:51