Green energy, too, suffers from political division

Myriad power projects face opposition, particularly in rural areas

Polls show that the vast majority of Americans support green energy to wean human society off fossil fuels. Why, then, are so many projects intended to create a carbon-free, planet-friendly energy future running into opposition across the nation and Lower Columbia region?

The answers tell us much about the divisions and distrust that are thwarting America’s global competitiveness.

Off the coasts of Grays Harbor in Washington and Coos Bay in Oregon, ambitious federal plans to encourage and subsidize large offshore wind projects have run into opposition from fishing communities.

Along the Lower Columbia River near Clatskanie, Columbia Riverkeeper and  farmers are fighting NEXT Renewable Fuels’ proposed $2 billion biofuels plant at the Port Westward industrial area. The company estimates the project would eliminate 7 million metric tons of greenhouse emissions annually — an amount equal to about 7 percent of Washington’s total carbon emissions — by converting vegetable oils and animal fat into clean diesel.

In the Columbia River Gorge, the Yakama Tribe opposes a $2 billion Goldendale pumped-storage hydroelectric project, which would use two 60-acre reservoirs to generate electricity during times of slack wind and solar power generation. The 680-acre site includes a shuttered aluminum plant, but it has cultural and resource significance to the tribe.

Green energy projects might one day be posed for the Barlow Point or old Reynolds Metals Co. sites near Longview, as new federal policies to encourage green energy take effect and industrial land availability shrinks elsewhere. Would they, too, face opposition? Most likely.

There isn’t space here to evaluate each of the these projects and many others facing opposition across the U.S. But there are several aspects of this conflict that deserve exploration, beyond the usual NIMBY  (Not In My Backyard) opposition. 

Clearly,  the urgency of the climate crisis has not been impressed strongly enough on a significant portion of the public. Too many people still think global warming is a theory, someone else’s problem or a distant reality.  

In fact, the Earth’s temperature has been rising;  carbon levels are among the highest in planet history;  impacts on crops, wildlife (such as Willapa Bay oysters), and ecosystems already are well-documented; and the vast majority of climate scientists say this is a crisis.  

Last week’s report that Washington’s Hinman Glacier in the North Cascades has completely melted away is a poignant reminder that climate change is real.

It’s arrogant presumption for a layman to challenge the science, yet this debate is poisoned by the partisan lack of respect for science sown by the oil and gas industry and MAGA element of the Republican party. 

But environmentalists, too, are to blame. I would ask Hood River-based Columbia Riverkeeper: Just what kind of energy project would it endorse? 

No power project has no impact. Wind turbines kill birds. Offshore wind turbines may interfere some with fishing access. Against these impacts, though, one must weigh the catastrophic consequences that fossil fuels are having on the climate, biosphere and geopolitical conflicts.

There’s a political divide at work here: The one between rural and urban communities, which some politicians are quick to exploit. So many these green energy projects are proposed on wide open spaces across rural America.  (According to the U.S. Energy Department, for example, meeting President Biden’s goal to increase solar power to 45% of the nation’s supply — currently 3% — would require a land area nearly as large as Western Washington. Of course, the fossil fuel industry consumes millions of acres of land and sea space, too.)  Rural communities fear they will feel the impacts of solar and wind farms but not get the jobs to create them, despite the new green energy legislation meant to encourage rural job growth. 

There is an important technical aspect to this question, too. Siting energy projects in rural areas — far from urban centers — means more energy is lost getting the juice to urban areas.  (The U.S. grid loses about 5 percent of all the electricity generated due to heat loss and electrical resistance in  transmission and distribution system.)

America should do more to encourage solar development on homes, warehouses and other buildings. That roof of that sprawling warehouse along Interstate 5 near Winlock would have been an ideal place for a solar farm, for example. Germany is encouraging developers to cover parking lots with solar panels. Why shouldn’t we?

At its heart, our struggle to create a greener economy shows why America is losing the innovation battle to other nations. There’s too much conflict and too little trust — in science, in government, in private enterprise. A current Atlantic magazine story —  “The Eureka Theory of History is Wrong” — highlighted how the lack of “social trust”  hinders bringing American innovation to market:

“In a country where people don’t trust government to be honest, or businesses to be ethical, or members of the opposite party to respect the rule of law,  it is hard to build anything quickly or effectively.”

We certainly need regulatory reform in this nation.  Permitting industrial and energy projects takes too long, has proven too arbitrary and leaves too many avenues of appeal.  (The demise of the proposed  Kalama Methanol plant after years of review and millions in permitting costs is a case in point.) Several years ago, Washington adopted “shot clock” legislation to limit the length of  environmental permitting, but it has no teeth.

Gov. Jay Inslee is seeking more power to get wind farms, transmission lines and other green-energy projects built in Eastern Washington, Don Jenkins of the Capital Press reports.  Good luck to the governor. Under House Bill 1216, developers could apply for permits through the  state  departments of Commerce and Ecology, avoiding  counties or the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.

Inslee complained late last year that NIMBYism is thwarting progress on the state’s climate goals. In one such case, a Benton County ban on new solar plants is blocking the 500-megawatt solar farm near Prosser.  The project would fence off 5,000 acres of land, but, as Jenkins reports, the developer says no irrigated cropland would be lost and sheep could still graze in the area.

It all seems reasonable to me. But what we have here ultimately is a crisis of trust and public understanding. We must get past these if we are to have a greener future.