When speaking with individuals who do not live at the shore, the conversation often turns to the mounting resistance of coastal counties to offshore wind because of the visual impact of the wind turbines on the Atlantic horizon. This is about so much more than the view.
The wind farms represent New Jersey’s contribution to the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Our geography means the renewable we most have at our disposal is wind power.
Gov. Phil Murphy has made the push to wind power generation a key aspect of the state’s response to the threats of climate change and sea level rise. He seeks to decarbonize the state’s energy use as quickly and thoroughly as possible. To that end, he has increased the capacity burden of conceptual wind farms long before the first turbine has appeared off New Jersey beaches.
Coastal residents have pointed to the spectacle of sea mammal carcasses washed up on state beaches and called for a halt to offshore wind activity. The tourism impact of visible wind farms has been calculated with a precision the numbers do not merit.
The issue here is not a spate of dead sea mammals or the view of turbines from the beach, although both of those issues have their importance. For many, the issue needs to be about the strategy for responding to climate change, the serious issues that arise from that strategy, and the urgency with which the strategy is being pushed.
In April, the Pew Research Center presented results of center surveys. A major result was that most Americans, 69%, support the national goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. That number dropped to 43% when the survey recipient was a self-identified Republican, so party affiliation plays a role here as it does in so many questions of import facing the country.
Perhaps a more key result of the Pew research was that the partisan divide has expanded in terms of how Americans view the threat of climate change. While a majority of Americans again see climate change as a major threat to the welfare of the country, Pew numbers say that only 23% of self-described Republicans or those that lean Republican share that conviction. The number for Democrats and those who lean Democrat is 78%
That split has a great deal to do with the urgency with which the state and the nation are responding to climate change threats. When one side sees an existential threat and the other does not, the stage is set for the dilemma we now face. One party in power will approach the problem with an urgency that is born not only from the perceived threats of climate change, but also from the fears that work will be abandoned or reversed based on the vagaries of the political cycle.
Obama made the U.S. a signatory to the Paris Accords. Trump removed the country from those accords. We rejoined the Accords in 2021.
Fossil fuel interests gravitate to the Republican Party, while environmental groups move left to the Democrats. The downside for us all is that one cannot implement a long-term strategy against a potential destabilizing and destructive threat in an environment that resembles a political seesaw.
The strategy of which wind power is a component is simply stated. Electrify as many sectors of life as possible and use renewables to generate the electricity needed. Move transportation from a dependence on oil to electricity. Transition home heating from a heavy reliance on natural gas to electricity. Pick another area of fossil fuel dependence and apply the same strategy.
This all, of course, then depends on moving away from fossil fuels to renewables to generate the massive amounts of electricity that will be needed.
The simply stated strategy comes fraught with problems.
Can we devise a system of electric generation and distribution that is reliable when it is so heavily dependent on fuel sources that do not continuously generate power?
We have an aging grid that is ill equipped to handle the needed volume of electricity and the distributed nature of renewable generation. What is the plan for the grid and where will the billions come from?
The socio-economic impacts of this transition are likely to be massive. We see the smallest tip of a very large iceberg with theBureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) suggestion of compensation for fisheries for reduced catch due to wind farm construction.
The transition of this magnitude is going to create winners and losers even if it overcomes the technical roadblocks. It is not a yellow brick road that will lead us to the promised land of economic abundance in a green economy. The pitch we get is one of an abundance of high–paying jobs and a vibrant, expanding economy. The road map from here to there is anything but clear.
We will continue to battle over the view of turbines on the horizon or dolphin carcasses on the beach. Delay and further political polarization will be the likely outcomes. Then, when power is concentrated in one party’s hands, we will see an all-out press that borders on haste to get as much in place as possible before the inevitable shift in political control.
Throughout our history, Americans have demonstrated an almost unique ability to overcome enormous obstacles when a consensus is present on a perceived threat. If we do not take the time to build that consensus because of a sense of urgency to move on the issue of climate change while we can, we run the very real risk of an experience that provides all the disruptions of change and few of the benefits of a well–implemented strategy.
History has shown that Americans are capable of enormous sacrifices, but we have to accept the reasons why the sacrifices are needed.
——-
From the Bible: How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity. Psalm 133 1
