Those who oppose alternative energy projects, and more recently those who support a competing alternative energy project they’d like to see materialize for their own reasons, have been drawing false equivalence between cosmetic impact and environmental concern for a while now. The first time I noticed this was when relatives who opposed the use of alternative energy for years (on the grounds that they couldn’t meet the demands fossil fuels could) started attacking the wind turbine projects then underway in Maine as an unsightly alteration of the skyline.
Today charges like, “they’re killing too many birds,” or “they’re upsetting our serene forest” are all too commonly mistaken for evidence of environmental concern. It’s easy to utter these things, and it’s sometimes easy to believe that those who utter them are talking about something that’s going to have a lasting impact on the health of our environment, but more often than not careful consideration will reveal their absurdity. In the case of bird death, one might recognize over time that pollution has a far greater impact on bird populations and that wind turbines will ease the considerable pressure it places on them, despite also killing some birds.
We’re seeking a balance. We are going to impact the environment. Euro-Americans haven’t exactly tread lightly here. If the forest were truly serene, for instance, the Wabanaki would still inhabit them. That’s a bit of a tangent but it goes to show that we do pick and choose how far we’re willing to go to restore an environment. I’m Métis, which is to say I’m a descendant of the mixed race communities that formed as the French sought to reinforce relationships between them and the indigenous people of this land that supported the fur trade. If you’re hearing of the Métis for the first time you’ve just learned of a centuries old environmental impact you previously knew little about.
Rhetoric changes. Believe it or not, the first colonists to arrive here thought the indigenous would be so impressed with them they’d willingly labor for them in exchange for the things they could teach. European governments were actually offering to pay colonists to marry indigenous women, because they thought that would solidify the bonds between us. Unfortunately, when European men agreed to live with indigenous women and adopt their customs it all became too much for those who believed Christianity was the lifeblood of their society. The Métis knew a brief period of acceptance before they found themselves subjected to the measures used in the attempt to eradicate them and the indigenous. We’re both like the birds in a way, severely impacted by the changes we’ve experienced but still holding on.
The scale of impact matters. Some things are going to have an obvious local impact but have little impact on the big picture. Air quality has by far the most widespread impact on environment. It is what we seek to impact through alternative energy projects, whether we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, airborne particulates, or any of a number of contaminants combustion dependent power generation processes release into the atmosphere. We know that these contaminants have altered the composition of its entire volume, all 20 billion cubic miles of it. We know that affects all life on Earth. We also know that if we stop emitting those contaminants the natural processes they’ve unbalanced will be restored. It’s no different than recognizing that we need sewage and water treatment plants if we’re going to have clean waterways.
My point is, we don’t fix these things by declaring them an emergency. That actually tends to work against us as passion, not understanding, is provoked in the process. It will lead something to be done, but that something will seldom have the desired effect. Those of you who recognized the deployment of troops into the Middle East as a response to passions that were fanned throughout the ’90s and finally ignited by 9/11 understand what I’m talking about. That didn’t happen because those who understood what it had taken to maintain stability there for 50 years decided it needed to happen, but because political leaders who’d used the topic to foster careers through the ’90s suspected the only way they’d keep them is if they agreed to deploy troops. Passion wouldn’t allow us to focus our attention on the Saudi terror network that was primarily responsible for our grief. We’d instead go after the Afghans who accepted their money in exchange for permission to train there, as though that had provided them the ability to carry out terror attacks. It didn’t. Most of that work was done in airports and city apartments. But I digress.
My only point here is that it’s important to carefully consider the positions we take because passion will often mislead us. I hope you consider that when you vote on the upcoming referendum. That’s all. Thanks for reading.
Jamie Beaulieu
Farmington
