There’s an intriguing battle raging right now as reflected in the pages of this newspaper.
“Prepare now for climate change,” sternly lectures S. Jeffress Williams in a recent My View piece.
“A consensus to harm citizens?” scolds Eric Bibler in another My View, referring to the wind turbine controversy in Falmouth.
On the one hand, there is mounting stridency in the tone of scientists and journalists over man-created climate change as it becomes increasingly clear that the people and governments of the world are not taking adequate measures to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide—measures such as wind turbines.
On the other hand there’s the outrage over the perceived victimization of Falmouth citizens by those particular wind turbines. In the op-ed piece and an ongoing email compaign, Bibler ridicules Falmouth government’s attempts at “consensus building” and compromise (such as running the turbines only parttime), making such efforts sound tantamount to the federal government countenancing water-boarding.
The debate rages. But only implicitly. The two interests rarely address each other. Both sides seem out of touch.
Thus Williams says global warming is “already having dramatic effects…especially for coastal and low-lying regions such as Cape Cod.” But I’m not aware of worried shellfishermen here in Wellfleet where you would think every inch of rising seas would dramatically affect the town’s vital shellfishing business. In fact when I called some time back the harbormaster said he was not aware of rising seas. As far as I know no resolutions or other signs of alarm have been raised at recent town meetings.
Bibler’s outrage over government having the temerity to harm citizens seems naïve to the point of disingenuousness. Aren’t “we”– as society, as government—always making decisions which in a sense sacrifice a certain portion of citizens, for instance those who must live, or at least do live, near airports or large highways or prisons or dumps? Near or downwind from a nuclear power plant?
Since we do it all the time, the fight should not be over whether we should as it were assign sacrifice but under what circumstances and is it in fact unavoidable.
And this is not to say that those assigned the sacrifice should not fight the good fight in their own behalf. I imagine the amount of support they get will have a lot to do with how necessary the sacrifice seems to others. (For a little perspective, imagine someone trying to get sympathy for the level of suffering claimed by those affected by the Falmouth turbines during the Great Depression or WW2.)
If climate change scientists are right, there will be a huge price to pay by virtually everyone on earth, compared to which the noise or flicker of wind turbines will be small potatoes. We should be able to muster the imagination to picture a time when we would all be happy to p ut up with wind turbine effects rather than the alternative.
This is assuming, of course, that wind turbines (or the Cape Wind so-called farm in Nantucket Sound) really will make more than a token contribution to solving the climate change problem, a dubious premise some would argue. According to a recent “New Yorker” article, to make a meaningful dent in the carbon emissions would require building thousands of windmills each month, turning the earth into a virtual pin cushion. (Or a new atomic plant every week for fifty years).
It would be a refreshing start to get this implicit debate out in the open, make it explicit.
If indeed we are a canary in coal mine when it comes to the effects of climate change, it would make a lot of sense to constitute a commission to consider with frequent open hearings the climate future, as The Cape Cod Commission considers the issue of development. Such a commission would debate just how seriously Cape Codders are going to take climate change scenarios, how worried we should be, and, if sacrifices are needed, which ones and how they should be administered.
And if the local consensus is that there is no cause for alarm, let us announce that loud and clear.
No Comments