Ladies & Gentlemen:
Who deserves to be labeled as a "NIMBY"?
Terrence Blacker's comments on "nimbyism" in the January 4, 2008, issue of The Independent are well taken but there is another way to look at the issue.
Let's start by accepting Mr. Blacker's definition; i.e., "...nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good."
In the US, the NIMBY term is often applied to people who oppose "wind farms," other electric generating plants, transmission lines, a variety of other facilities, and the adverse environmental, scenic, and property value impact associated with these facilities.
But who are the people that most often apply the "NIMBY" label to their opponents?
Again, in the US, it seems that those most likely to apply the term are:
a. Developers and prospective owners of the "wind farm," other generating plant, transmission line, etc. who expect to profit from the facility,
b. Lobbyists, publicists, trade associations representing the above,
c. Government officials that take up the cause being pursued by the above,.
d. A wide variety of "non-government," "non-profit," or other organizations -- some of whom are serving as "fronts" for developers and owners, some who are self-appointed advocates for causes selected by their leaders, AND.
e. Potentially most important (and most annoying), those people who want the PRODUCT or SERVICE offered by the proposed facilities BUT do not want the facility and associated adverse environmental, scenic or property value impacts anywhere near them.
In the case of "wind farms," other generating plants and transmission lines, this latter group (e, above) is likely to include (i) residents of cities and surrounding suburbs -- particularly higher income areas, (ii) self-styled "environmentalists," and/or (iii) local government officials and politicians who wish to be seen as "environmentally concerned." Examples that come to mind include:
1. People in California (including political leaders) who oppose building of generating plants IN California but who have been quite willing to import electricity produced by coal-fired generating plants in other states.
2. Political leaders in large cities such as New York who are quite willing to see their economies grow, their citizens' lifestyles improved, and their electricity demand grow -- AND WHO LOOK TO THE PEOPLE IN MORE RURAL AREAS to accept without objection the construction of "wind farms," other generating plants and transmission lines in THEIR backyards, front yards, scenic areas, and OR most any place considered necessary to satisfy the desires for reliable electricity by people and businesses in the highly populated areas.
3. The growing number of local government officials who engage in pseudo-environmentalism by using their constituents' tax dollars to pay premium prices for so-called "green energy" (i.e., electricity allegedly produced from wind and other "renewable" energy sources so that they can appear to be "environmentally concerned" -- but who do so without regard to the environmental, ecological, scenic, or property value damage that "wind farms," and other "renewable" facilities AND transmission lines are imposing on others.
PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO INSIST THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN CITIES AND SUBURBS ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENERATING PLANTS IN THEIR IMMEDIATE AREA.
In fact, state of the art generating units (particularly gas-fired) have relatively few adverse environmental impacts and may present effective ways of redeveloping blighted areas in or close to cities. Furthermore, having generating units close to centers of electricity demand is technically advantageous to grid management, reduces or eliminates the need for building more transmission lines, AND reduces the loss of electricity that occurs when it is transmitted over long distances.
Glenn Schleede
No comments:
Post a Comment