Sane Energy Policy Requires Compromise

Of all the byproducts of our gross extravagance in energy consumption over the last half century, the one that could be most toxic to all of us is the way it has turned brother against brother with regard to environmentalism.  Here’s the website of the Agricultural Defense Coalition, whose authors, I’m quite confident, are fine people.  But their mission is essentially to block experimentation whose purpose is to ameliorate climate change, if such tests could affect the purity of agriculture.

I’m reminded of the people who object to solar energy in the deserts of the U.S. southwest on the basis that it displaces certain reptiles, or those who object to wind turbines on the basis that they’re ugly.  I’m not happy about the plight of those reptiles, and I too would rather behold the pristine beauty of the prairies, but not at the expense of coal-fired power plants that, each day, drive our planet closer to the point at which it will no longer support life.

For what it’s worth, this is why Bill McKibben’s recent book is called “Eaarth.” It’s a one-word reminder that we will never again live on a planet that is unadulterated by human activity.  There are PCBs in the arctic.  Our blood systems contain over 140 different synthetic chemicals.  To the Agricultural Defense Coalition, and anyone else who wishes for a return to anything remotely resembling “purity,” I point out that train left the station 50 – 75 years ago.

We are in a world of hurt if we can’t realize, as a civilization, that we’re going to have to make certain sacrifices.  Let’s get to that realization as a culture, then work together to make the right ones.