Hetch-Hetchy and Glenn Canyon All Over Again

In which I respond to a memo sent to Sierra Club activists telling them that the Club leadership doesn't want them wasting their efforts by trying to block a poorly-vetted and damaging solar power plant. (Via faultline.org)

 

This, alas, is not a new story for the Sierra Club. The leadership seems peculiarly vulnerable to accepting the spurious logic that if a given resource is deemed vital to the development of the West then it is okay to sacrifice Western environments to obtain it.  First water, then water and power, and now power. 

In each instance, subsequent generations came to deeply regret such decisions.  No one, that I am aware of, looks back at such compromises and thinks, "That worked out well.  Let's do it again."

And yet they do.

I find it troubling that whenever the leadership of the Sierra Club decides that it will make nice with the powers-that-be in Washington and in state houses around the country, it is almost inevitably a Western wildland that takes the fall.  I don't know whether it's because they feel it is too hard to sell East Coast politicians on the beauty and value of drylands ecosystems, because the threats to these ecosystems are quiet and slow instead of dramatic and obvious (like oil spills, flaming rivers, and mountains with their tops lopped off), or because that they, themselves, don't see the value of these places.

Whatever the reason, it is Western environments that consistently get the shit end of the stick - which is ironic given the name of the organization and the role those environments played in its creation.

I'm also tired of the idea that solar energy (and wind, and hydroelectric) are to be uncritically celebrated as "alternatives" to fossil fuel-based energy production.  First, they are themselves technologies dependent on fossil fuels - for their production and for their operation.  Second, the idea that we must sacrifice our wildlands in order to produce energy is not alternative in the least.  It's the current status quo.  Third, they reinforce the idea that energy consumption is not really on the table; constructing additional plants without addressing consumption first is like bringing icebergs down from the Arctic to water lawns in the desert.

What solar power really offers is the opportunity to look like one's doing something different while in reality continuing on with business as usual.

I think it is not coincidence that these "compromises" are occurring where defenders of Western wildlands face the challenge of undoing over a century of cultural propaganda that casts rich and unique ecosystems as barren wastelands.  Deserts have been treated as American dumping grounds for a long time - they are where we store toxic waste, test nuclear weapons, cage prisoners, erect massive border systems, ride ATVs, dump trash, hide dead bodies, and so on. 

Nor do I think it's coincidence that solar and wind have become the poster children of the "alternative" energy movement.  Unlike hydroelectric, which carries the weight of Glenn Canyon and which in its dams wreaks immediate and obvious changes in the environment, the costs of solar and wind power are hidden and out-sourced.  The mining needed to obtain the minerals for both technologies is not part of the calculus, nor is the destruction they require for their construction (as currently conceived - rooftop solar avoids this at least), nor the damage they cause during their operation - such as the havoc wind generator blades wreak on bat populations and migrating birds, or the demand for water in areas where it is scarce to cool the solar generators. They are "clean" in that they don't produce gasses or other airborne pollutants while generating energy, but that's about the only difference from "conventional" energy production, when they are considered as parts of larger operating systems, and the costs and pollution of their production and operation are factored in.

Rather than taking the time to educate people about either the value of arid wildlands, or about the hidden costs of "alternative" energy, the Sierra Club leadership has decided to punt.  They've decided to save their energy for more marketable battles, where they can tug the heartstrings with easily understood stories of out-of-work fishermen, poisoned children, and oil-soaked birds. 

It is not that those issues are unimportant.  But they, at root, stem from the same assumptions that lead the Sierra Club and others to sacrifice Western wildlands in order to feed our demand for energy - don't ask us to sacrifice anything, and don't let us see the costs of that selfishness - hide it away in places we don't care about, and don't ask us to care.  Let the "useless" and "unphotogenic" deserts bear the brunt of the burden, let the mining take place out of sight in foreign countries and on Indian reservations, let the quiet gleam of smokeless solar plants blind us to the coal-burning factories and petroleum-fueled machinery necessary to create and construct them.  Let us make minor cosmetic changes, screw in a few fluorescent bulbs, and pat ourselves on the back for our virtue.

As a life member of the Sierra Club, I am angry, and deeply ashamed to be associated with that kind of short-sighted and lazy thinking.  It was Western environments and my admiration of the organization's founder that brought me to the Club... it is galling to admit that I thought its leaders had learned from past mistakes. 

I was wrong.  And the deserts are paying for it.

Comments

[Claudia Putnam]

Well, you're right. Energy is ugly. And some lands should not be developed at all. A few years ago I helped with this: http://www.energyatlas.org/, which doesn't look like it's been updated in a while--maybe Western Resource Advocates has something newer elsewhere on its site. The idea was to map the sites most accessible and fruitful for renewables production (partly so locals, including ranchers, could become better advocates and understand how they could benefit) and also to indicate which areas should be left alone no matter how productive they might be. I don't know how the area you're discussing fared.

But coming back to my earlier statement: Energy is ugly, and remote areas bear the brunt of production. And poor areas. So, the question then becomes, what type of production do you then want. I agree that some areas have to be left alone and if the area you are advocating for is one of them, I'd be with you. But some people will fight against any development anywhere, and that cannot be, because of course it's harmful objectively anywhere, and of course it's going to break hearts.

But in some areas, not having the jobs is going to break hearts also, and having a coal plant or a nuke plant is a worse way for those people to work, and having the water treatment and the air polution or whatever else is going to be worse for those local residents.

But yes, energy efficiency is certainly the place to start.

Have you read The Long Emergency? Highly recommend. Whether this site is the best place or not, and I'm willing to agree we might need to go elsewhere, he argues that if we do not switch over now, we will not, as we will not have enough oil to manufacture the turbines and panels, etc to bring up capacity in renewables in time. Just a thought regarding the urgency.

[Rana]

Honestly, this is less about "alternative energy is evil" and more a rageful lament that even an organization created to defend Western landscapes cannot these days be bothered to try.

Regarding the idea that energy production must inevitably hurt the poorest and the farthest away from the centers of power (literally and figuratively), I expect more.

Finally: Solar Done Right

As for the particular case Chris and I are referencing, there will be few local jobs, there is no clear need for that plant in that location, there are alternatives closer in to populated areas, the technology is both untried and has had significant problems in the testing stages, the process by which it was approved disregarded the arguments against it, and it is sited in an area where there is clear cultural and biological worth. Yet the Sierra Club leadership is telling its members to write this area off, and to focus on more important things, because supporting solar is Just So Important that these sorts of details should be ignored. Chris's blog has much, much more on this case, as does Solar Done Right.

Rolling over at this point, when the precedents for how solar power will be developed in the future are being established, is penny wise and pound foolish - like the other two infamous cases I referenced. This is NOT the time for the Sierra Club to passively accept the dominant narratives about energy production - and that's just what it's doing. It's allowing - even promoting! - the greenwashing of solar and wind into something they aren't: a free lunch.

And I do believe that this is in large part because even an organization founded to defend Western environments doesn't think, at base, that they're all that valuable compared to things like political power, the approval of local businesses, and maintaining the status quo.