Green energy’s green light

More Americans are willing to have renewable energy projects in their communities. Another shift is that regulators are learning to listen better before starting a green project.

|
AP
Vehicles move past wind turbines in Livermore, Calif.

The transition to a green energy future required a long prologue as scientists and engineers sought efficient ways to harness wind, sunlight, and other renewable sources of power to curb climate change. Now that future may depend on tapping forces more commonly associated with building democracy than with developing technology.

That’s because green projects like wind turbines and solar farms, and new runs of high-tension power lines, face regulatory hurdles and opposition from diverse groups, calling on civic virtues such as listening, honesty, and fairness.

New polls show that more Americans may be willing to live near energy-producing infrastructure. One reason is that power producers are learning how to win over communities through patient engagement. Some critics of such projects “just don’t want it because they don’t want it,” Lisa Grow, CEO of Idaho Power, told the Los Angeles Times. So much of that resistance, she said, is based on misunderstanding. “But for people that have specific needs, I think it is worth the time to have a process where they can be invited in, and you can deal with some of those things upfront. If you wait until the end, you just have a fight.”

In a poll published Thursday, the LA Times and the University of California, Berkeley found that 56% of Californian voters support installing wind turbines in their communities. Even more (69%) say they would welcome solar farms. Almost double the number (52% versus 27%) back offshore wind turbines visible from their beaches.

Those views are even more widely upheld in polls across the United States. A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll in July found that more than 70% of Americans said they would be comfortable with solar farms and wind turbines in their communities. Engaging opponents of such projects, Doug Vine, director of energy analysis at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, told The Washington Post, is “the secret sauce in making sure that these things come together.”

That idea is now the focus of a new course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the first of its kind to focus on energy regulatory reform in the context of engaging communities. Larry Susskind, the professor who designed the course, argues that ignoring community concerns creates acrimony. The course looks for solutions to what often causes projects to stall – such as misinformation or concerns about environmental injustice. A listening-first approach for regulators in granting permits for new projects may seem simplistic, but it is winning converts.

“A lack of perceived fairness and equity, particularly in the decision-making processes at the local level, increases opposition” to proposed new energy projects, a group of researchers at UC Santa Barbara concluded in a paper published in September. That underscores the value of enabling the full range of stakeholders in a community to feel heard, they wrote.

A transition from fossil fuels is increasingly feasible because of technology advances. Public support is also helping that transition, driven by the light of patience and respect.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Green energy’s green light
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2023/1103/Green-energy-s-green-light
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe