Community Members

Caving in: Is the minority ruling against renewable energy for Rochester, NY?

Why, when 68% of Monroe County voters approve of off-shore wind power in Lake Ontario, does the Monroe County legislature oppose it?

"Majority of Monroe County legislators oppose state's wind farm plan The New York Power Authority continues to consider proposals to build offshore wind turbines, but a majority of Monroe County legislators have now gone on record opposing the idea. The Power Authority, an independent arm of state government, solicited proposals in 2009 from the private sector to build one or more wind farms in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Five proposals were submitted last June, and authority officials have been studying them since then. Officials have refused to reveal any information about the proposals.” (January 19, 2011) Democrat and Chronicle

Is it politics? Is it the media’s inability to frame this renewable option to the public coherently? Has the fossil fuel industry effectively prodded the government to not act in its own (and their constituents’) best interest? Are our Monroe County Legislature and the media caving into a small number of shoreline communities who happened to have an unfair (location, location, location) advantage on this matter?

“But opposition has surfaced in a number of shoreline communities, with county lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties coming out against the idea.” (January 19, 2011) Democrat and Chronicle

Our lakes, the Finger Lakes and the Great Lakes, are not private swimming pools of the few; they are a natural resource for all citizens. The rage against off-shore wind turbines by shoreline property owners is hard to understand as anything but a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue. If the concerns were environmental concerns, these groups would be fighting tooth and nail against the myriad of serious environmental problems with our lakes. If you care, take a moment and review the news and reports about the tragic state of our Great Lakes from just the last twelve years: Great Lakes | Rochester, NY Perspective | RochesterEnvironment.com�"which include invasive species, fish diseases, phosphate pollution, warming waters due to Climate Change, sewage from overworked waste treatment plants, and much more.

Besides, the New York State Power Authority (NAPA) has addressed the environmental concerns in depth on this page: Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) Myths vs facts www.nypa.gov/NYPAwindpower/mythsvsFacts.html

Let me be clear: I am not against or being dismissive towards shoreline property owners and their concerns about placing wind turbines off-shore from their homes. I lived near the shores of a Finger Lake for 15 years. I am concerned about the disproportional influence these groups have in deciding on a major renewable energy source for our region.

We have to ask ourselves: How are we weighing critical environmental decisions like whether to develop renewable energy in a time of Climate Change? There is no shortage of facts flying about as to why we should or should not place off-shore wind turbines in our region. But what principles are we using to judge so important a matter? The most important issue (the elephant in the room) should be the most discussed and pivotal to this decision�"Climate Change. But it isn’t even mentioned in the media as a consideration. Tragically, we cannot have a full and complete conversation about off-shore wind power here, or anywhere in the United States, even though wind power (together with conservation and battery storage) could make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gases.

Our local media is obsessed with why the New York State Power Authority isn’t saying exactly where the off-shore wind projects will be placed.

“Some lakeside counties and communities want to know exactly where the proposed projects - the NYPA could select some, all, or none of the proposals - would be located. But NYPA officials say they aren't releasing details yet because the review is a competitive process and they want to be fair.” (January 18, 2011) ENERGY: Offshore wind proposals still under review - - Rochester City Newspaper

While this may be important to shoreline property owners, the media doesn’t include this: When we stop efforts to develop wind power In NYS, here are your energy choices (as of 2003):

“…nuclear 29%, oil 12%, solid waste 1%, solar 1%, wind 1%, biomass 1%, hydropower 17%, coal 18%, natural gas 22%... “ AskPSC - NY's Green Power Program

Those who don’t want wind turbines because they mar the beauty and naturalness of a lake don’t understand that Climate Change will dramatically alter water levels, increase invasive species, change all the fauna and flora in and around our lakes.

So if you don’t choose wind power or solar, you choose by default natural gas (which will involve hydrofracking, possibly contaminating our water sources, and warming up the planet because it’s a fossil fuel; coal (which is destroying other community’s mountain tops, seriously warming up the planet, and polluting our atmosphere with particulates and heavy metals like mercury); hydroelectric (which dams up our waters and negatively impacts fish life); nuclear (which is so dangerous and expensive that it’s the bane of most bankers); or biofuels (which, though easily accommodated by our existing engines and less polluting than fossil fuels, still warms up the planet and would better be used to enrich our soil, from whence it came).

Our Power Authority does not have the luxury of not providing us with power. They have to by law. And the public is not going to opt for no power. And New York State has a goal of greatly increasing renewable energy:

“A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a policy that seeks to increase the proportion of renewable electricity used by retail customers. New York has adopted an aggressive goal of obtaining 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015 �" referred to as 30 x15.” NYSERDA - The New York Renewable Portfolio Standard www.nyserda.org/rps/index.asp

Our elected officials and power authorities do not have the luxury of not addressing Climate Change and protecting our environment. They must protect our water infrastructure, for example, when as predicted by Climate Change; there will be more extreme weather events like flooding which will put raw sewage into our waters when they are overwhelmed. The only people who have the luxury of denying Climate Change are the Climate Change deniers who likely will never be held responsible for the climate change they help to unleash.

The Monroe County legislature should be listening to everyone on off-shore wind power in our region and properly weighing their decisions using both facts and environmental principals (physics) in a time of rapid Climate Change. Meanwhile, the public (yes, our regional public) has a moral responsibility for future generations to evaluate the serious arguments on Climate Change.

At a minimum, a renewable energy source that does not pollute should be allowed to flourish in the face of global warming and the extremely polluting properties of burning coal and other fossil fuels. Imagine how clean our environment would be if as much concern was directed towards fossil fuel production as is now hurled against wind power. The litany of arguments (most of them local irritants) against wind turbines pale against the biological disaster that will be ours if we continue to get most of our energy from burning fossil fuels. Preserving our fundamental right to clean air, our right not to endure preventable environmental disasters like the one now unfolding in eastern Tennessee, and our right to a sustainable environment should be the guide by which decide on our energy sources. Global is the proper perspective.

What is becoming clear with this article and several others, Rochester City Newspaper is now the most important environmental newspaper in our area. Every other media in our area has dropped the ball on the most important issue of the day�"the state of our environment. The other media in our area�"newspapers, TV, radio, etc.�"when they publish articles on our environment at all are mostly pollution outbreaks, reprints from other media, or agenda-ridden stories that foster the illusion that we are ‘going green’ rapidly.

Granted there is a shift in public, governmental, and business attitudes towards living a more environmentally sustainable life, but an honest, investigatory, and comprehensive appraisal of our complete environmental profile is missing. Articles like this on the Genesee River, which is polluted and has not been visited by the media for years, is missing as Dr. Makarewicz notes an “understanding of the river's specific long-term trends.” If we were really serious about our environment, articles like this would occur daily.

Just one little concern: How can one talk about ‘industrial pollution’ of the Genesee River and not mention Kodak?

It may seem as though Canadian Geese are everywhere, but humans really are everywhere. Canadian Geese, like crows, starlings, raccoons, pigeons, and squirrels are one of the relatively few creatures that thrive around humans.

Most of the world’s plants and animals don’t do so well. Most, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, perish in the wake of human development and population growth. So much so that many scientists believe we are witnessing the Sixth Great Extinction event, comparable to that 65 million years ago, which saw the demise of the dinosaurs. Except this extinction event is different; it is human caused.

My point: When you see flocks of Canadian Geese and some of the other species that have managed to eek out a living amongst our rapacious species, you might think fondly of these lucky fellow creatures�"instead of eyeing them as ‘pests’, that is, through the myopic lens of human hegemony.

It is sad about the cuts jobs at the Democrat and Chronicle. Job cuts mean less reporting, Less reporting means less coverage on environmental issues in our area. News is when an environmental catastrophe -- like contamination from a brownfield into a community -- happens. Reporting is anticipating and helping the public to connect the dots so environmental issues don't become catastrophes.

One of the provisions of the COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 I thought was for the media to act in accordance with the public interest. But how much have Gannet, and the rest of our mainstream media, acted in the public interest when the largest newspaper in our area barley mentions serious environmental issues in our area? Sure, there's "greeney" articles -- delusional or cherry-picked articles that allow us the illusion that we are seriously doing something confronting issues of sustainability.

As the effects of Global Warming, pollution and cuts in environmental managing, become greater, our media provides us with less coverage. We get more entertainment, which we crave, and less critical information about the actual state of our environment, which we need. Then the various media fail because they have become irrelevant, because you can get entertainment at the moves.

“It” (our environment) ought to be on people’s mind, in the way our economy should have been on people’s mind. There are so many reasons why people and the media don’t pay much attention to our environment�"it’s boring, it’s got so politically fuzzy we’ve forgotten it’s science, it’s not TV, whatever�"but a failed environment will make a failed economy look like a Bush-Is-Finally-Leaving-The-Presidency party.

When our environment does fail because we haven’t taken the time to know the issues, anticipate the problems, overdeveloped, didn’t clean up the pollution, and just plain ignored it, there are going to be a lot of finger-pointing going on (just as there is about the present economic Tsunami) and they should be pointing at us.

Although there are many nuclear plants around the world, one Chernobyl-like incident will chill any Global Warming argument used in favor of using nuclear power. Man is prone to error, despite the efforts of the best and brightest who build and maintain our nuclear power plants. For, when you think about it, they have to be the best given the consequences of a nuclear error. Also, nuclear plants take a long time to build (meaning paperwork), a lot of insurance, and lots and lots of water to cool the plants�"not to mention the warmed waters discharges which affect fish life.

As for the “baseload” argument that coal and nuclear power are our only choices: If we redesigned our electrical grid so that computers could help channel energy loads when and where they are needed, solar and wind power could provide the necessary base loads. Critics are forever belying the reliability of wind and solar because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Well, if the grid is large enough, the wind does always blow�"somewhere. And already there are reliable solar batteries that can store energy when the sun doesn’t shine�"it’s called heating water, which retains heat very well and could heat our houses.

As for the arguments about wind and solar power having to be given tax breaks by the government, it’s hard to take them seriously when one thinks about how many billions the US has allowed the oil companies in tax relief.

Isn’t it time to do the right thing on energy and go renewable energy? You won’t need an iodine pill for your thyroid, if you live next to a wind turbine.