The conducting of an environmental assessment study is not a USA driven monopoly. These studies are required by all world agencies for any project that can have an impact. I was reading about how hydroelectric dams are impacting people whose lands are inundated by the resulting lakes that are created. News stories such as these never direct the readers to the EA that was conducted as part of that project. The EA will outline the impacts, the alternatives, etc. So that the suggestion that these news stories make that people are arbitrarily being displaced without consideration is never accurate.
_________________________________________________________________________
This is my editorial about Alternative Energy that has nothing to do with Environmental Compliance:
When the Tennessee Valley Authority built hydroelectric dams there were many Americans farmers who were driven off their lands; also destroying hunting and fishing grounds. Now those areas thrive with new business development, irrigation farming, and people who were just getting by now have other opportunities. Not to mention all the people outside of the area whose standard of living was improved.
We as "Green" conscious professionals need to pick a side. Either we want alternative energy or we don't. It is a fact that any major change will impact somebody. Is this right? The answer is not easy. We continue to scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame the oil companies and government for in action, and the current state of energy affairs. Then when an alternative energy project is built we scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame government for this action. Because this project impacts the beauty of the landscape, changes the natural wind patterns, displaces people from their homes, confuses a bird’s flight route, turtle populations increase, changes the this or that. Guess what, any alternative energy source you pick will have some consequence and impact; ANY.
Most all alternative energy sources do not have the energy equivalence of oil, so that they are not as efficient. Which means that their use will have a greater impact. Look at the solar or wind farms. For example the proposed solar farm near Primm Nevada will require 3,500 acres of desert. But it will provide clean energy to millions of people. Also, these particular energy sources do not in themselves contribute anything else back to the user. Hydroelectric provides users with multiple uses beyond supplying a clean energy source, such as irrigation, recreational, creating a reserve of water in case of a drought, etc.
This is the hard choice to be made, either: provide alternative energy, maintain the status quo (oil), or let people remain in the dark ages. Pick a side and then live with the consequences.
_________________________________________________________________________
This is my editorial about Alternative Energy that has nothing to do with Environmental Compliance:
When the Tennessee Valley Authority built hydroelectric dams there were many Americans farmers who were driven off their lands; also destroying hunting and fishing grounds. Now those areas thrive with new business development, irrigation farming, and people who were just getting by now have other opportunities. Not to mention all the people outside of the area whose standard of living was improved.
We as "Green" conscious professionals need to pick a side. Either we want alternative energy or we don't. It is a fact that any major change will impact somebody. Is this right? The answer is not easy. We continue to scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame the oil companies and government for in action, and the current state of energy affairs. Then when an alternative energy project is built we scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame government for this action. Because this project impacts the beauty of the landscape, changes the natural wind patterns, displaces people from their homes, confuses a bird’s flight route, turtle populations increase, changes the this or that. Guess what, any alternative energy source you pick will have some consequence and impact; ANY.
Most all alternative energy sources do not have the energy equivalence of oil, so that they are not as efficient. Which means that their use will have a greater impact. Look at the solar or wind farms. For example the proposed solar farm near Primm Nevada will require 3,500 acres of desert. But it will provide clean energy to millions of people. Also, these particular energy sources do not in themselves contribute anything else back to the user. Hydroelectric provides users with multiple uses beyond supplying a clean energy source, such as irrigation, recreational, creating a reserve of water in case of a drought, etc.
This is the hard choice to be made, either: provide alternative energy, maintain the status quo (oil), or let people remain in the dark ages. Pick a side and then live with the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment