Michael Rosenthal

(4/2021) I have always been a proponent of wind power. I believe in having a variety of sources of energy production, considering that some of them are more suitable to the environment in which they work than others. Of course some sources are trouble to the environment no matter where they are sited, such as coal.

The current administration in Washington has a much more progressive attitude toward energy production than the previous administration. The Biden administration in March moved toward approval of the building of a wind farm about 12 nautical miles offshore from the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Such a source would be friendly to the environment and would be a powerful tool in combating climate change.

This proposed 2.8 billion dollar project has been under consideration for some two decades, and it has been opposed by a well-organized and well-funded opposition effort from waterfront property owners, including the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy and the billionaire industrialist William I. Koch. The current approved project will be a bit south of the original site, out of sight from the Kennedy Hyannis Compound.

I believe that we must cooperate to move toward the production of clean energy, and if this means revising one’s view of the surrounding environment, then that should be done. Such opinions are subjective. I personally like the view of a wind turbine, but others do not.

Technological advances have been made, costs of construction have declined, and the increasing sensitivity to protecting the environment all make this project a good idea. The project will consist of up to 84 turbines and will generate some 800 megawatts of electricity – enough to power some 400,000 homes. The generated power would be carried by buried cables that will carry the electricity to Cape Cod, where the power will feed into the New England power grid. There is now a small wind power project now operating off Block Island, Rhode Island, that began operation in 2016.

Wind power is a good fit to the area in question along the coast. Seven states along the east coast have expressed commitments to buy offshore generated electricity – New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland, to buy 24,000 megawatts of this electricity by 2035. Power generated by this method is "clean power" – no emissions and thus no damage to the environment, especially producing no greenhouse gases.

There have been some worries about impact on the fishing industry. The current plan proposes that the turbines be spaced a mile or so apart to allow fishing to continue without interference. I believe concern for the support of the fishing industry is a legitimate concern, but proper spacing of the turbines and other construction considerations can successfully address that issue. Another advantage of the project is job creation for the construction.

There is no way to produce energy without some environmental impact, but we can choose our methods of energy production and techniques of siting and construction to obtain maximum efficiency with minimal negative impact. This consideration was not a priority with the Trump administration, but it appears to be one with the Biden administration.

One of the frustrations that environmentally conscious people felt during the previous federal administration was the seeming willingness to overlook environmental impact in favor of short-term economic gain. Our new administration has begun the march back to environmental protective measures in a variety of situations.

The newly confirmed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michael Regan is already expressing a new approach to environmental protection than that of the last four years. Reagan has expressed a commitment to hasten the nation’s shift to cleaner energy production, to invest in community projects in areas battered by years of such pollution, and to improve air and water quality throughout the United States.

Among his projects is one to bring back staff members who left EPA during the previous administration in frustration over program cuts and lack of commitment to environmental protection. Reagan was one of those former EPA employees who left. Among the topics the EPA will consider is the previous administration’s rollback of tailpipe emission rules for new cars and trucks, and its opposition to California’s tighter than federal regulations on this matter. He expressed this as a major topic in his commitment to greenhouse gas emission. He also favors an increase in regulation of ozone and other dangerous pollutants that had been weakened in the past four years. Under President Obama a more rigorous Clean Power Plan had been put into place, but the Trump administration weakened these standards. Regan has expressed serious concern over the use of polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances that have health impacts and promises a close look at the level of regulation.

What we are witnessing is the significant difference in approach to environmental protection from the Trump Era to the Biden Era. I believe that environmental policy should try to divorce itself from Republican versus Democrat, and try to look at science (hence my title Real Science!) and consider impact on our planet and on the health of our citizens that our policies have.

Compromises need to be made. I don’t suggest we go back to horse and buggies to replace automobiles, but we need to consider short term and long term environmental impacts along with economic impacts.

________________________________

I try to avoid be too political in Real Science, but that has become almost impossible with the conflicting attitudes between President Trump’s science policy and that of President Obama and now President Biden. It will be very interesting to see what changes occur in the next four years. Among the environmental protections that were weakened in the last four years is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act, and severely weakened protections in hunting regulations. In 2019 a United Nations panel determined that 1 million species face possible extinction, more than during any other period in human history. It was reported that 3 billion birds have vanished in North America over the last fifty years. There is however now reason to be optimistic. President Biden has an 83 percent lifetime score with the League of Conservation Voters dating to 1973.

President Trump rolled back at least 125 environmental regulations, with an especially strong negative attitude toward protection of wildlife. The core of the issue is the desire of the parts of the business world not to limited by environmental regulation. The Endangered Species Act was one of their worst enemies. The Trump administration denied protection to more than 199 species and only 35 were given protection. The Clinton Administration protected 523 species.

One of the most controversial of these situations is the protection of polar bears in the search for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. President Biden is enormously more sympathetic to such issues than was President Trump. A better balance needs to be found. The upcoming years will be very interesting to watch.

Read other articles by Michael Rosenthal