In the past couple days, the New York Times has published two stories about new energy. In one about new controversial gas drilling in Colorado, The Times is pretty clearly against drilling. There is a risk of pollution (there always is an environmental cost in all energy, including green energy). But what upsets The Times is its aesthetic damage to the Roan Plateau.
“The rugged hills are dotted with sage and aspen groves. Some creeks are watering holes for cattle, but most appear untouched, rushing through the deep shale canyons that define the plateau’s topography. Vegetation hangs from some escarpments, and smooth shale slabs hold back pools of trout.”
The Roan has roads and development but its beauty holds a special meaning to many inhabitants who want to preserve it.
The following day, The Times condemned a similar aesthetic concern about Nantucket Sound where the Wampanoag tribes have objected to a wind farm.
“Tribal officials say their culture requires them to greet the sunrise each day and that this ritual requires unobstructed views. Their claim should be rejected by the responsible federal and state officials. Another round of bureaucratic reviews would drag out an approval process that has gone on much too long and give opponents time to find some other way to derail the effort… The alliance includes many local people but has been largely underwritten by wealthy homeowners from Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod who hate the idea of having 440-foot windmills on the horizon.”
I’ve never been to either place: I’m sure they’re both lovely. Of course, neither may be the Grand Canyon or other place of such wonder and beauty that they become an international treasure.
But I am not sure why one is aesthetically worth preserving and the other isn’t — except that The Times is pro-green energy, the same way the gas companies, which seem rather more immune to the delights of the Roan plateau, are pro-gas. It’s not the beauty of the landscape to The Times — it’s the beauty of the idea.
I’ve seen wind and shale gas projects — there are both near where I live, and I have to say, the huge turbines are strange and majestic but somehow not hideous (although they do apparently harm migratory bird populations and cause other problems). On the other hand, a shale gas well, after drilling, is roughly the size of a garden shed — not a terrible blight on the landscape and possibly easier to hide than a cell phone tower or a ranch. And I am not choosing with any side. There are significant problems with all the choices.
Giant oil rigs, coal strip mining, careless traditional well placements are ugly. They absolutely do ruin a beautiful landscape. In calculating wind or gas projects, the natural landscape must be considered – but fairly and equally.
