The debate over the New Jersey offshore wind initiative has become a divisive issue bound up in our views on government and climate change. We are losing our ability to debate an important issue on its merits. Restoring the discussion to one that considers its many facets in a manner appropriate to its significance is a task our state government must accept.
The recent spike in sea mammal fatalities is a phenomenon that has galvanized public attention to be sure, but the conflict that has burgeoned as a result goes far beyond the tragic beaching of whales and dolphins. It goes to the heart of a concern with a massive transition in energy sourcing that will impact our local economy, our spatial arrangements and our very way of life. It poses obvious dangers if mishandled because it deals with the very fundamentals of existence, the energy pool upon which we all depend.
We are told that the push to massive development of offshore wind is one of the most important responses to global warming and climate change. The planet is heating up to levels inconsistent with our current way of life. Seas are rising, threatening living arrangements around the globe. Fierce storms are likely to be more frequent and more destructive. Floral and fauna migrations are already underway and could undermine traditional patterns of agriculture. Fresh water sources are drying up. Even climate–change–driven human migrations are a potential threat to our geopolitical stability.
This is a bleak picture. We are warned that it is one of existential importance, requiring transformative adaptation across a myriad of fronts. In this context, the shift to offshore wind as an important source of renewable energy is but part of that transformation. It requires sacrifices and adjustments that we must make and pushing these through is the job of strong executive leadership.
No one is willing to say it, but the feeling is inescapable. The unsaid message is that there will be casualties in so massive a change and we must accept them as they come.
The anxiety produced by such transformative actions should not be surprising. Citizens watch as local elected bodies are pushed aside because they are “obstructing” a program that must go forward.
Concerns abound about the visibility of wind farms, about reported disruption of radar and maritime communications, about the potential for environmental damage of which the sea mammal crisis may just be a harbinger, and about the ultimate cost of this transformation and who will pay for it. What is the likelihood that ambitious goals for alternative power will match up, both in terms of reliability and sequence, with the pull-back on traditional energy sources provoked by hastily created disincentives for investment? These are concerns that are not addressed in ways appropriate to their gravity.
In this environment, resistance is inevitable. Politicization of that resistance is equally unavoidable. The end result for those who are most supportive of the activities underway to transformation of our energy profile is they will lose the war.
The war, as they see it, is one that must be fought in a timeframe dictated by climate change. Thus, the commitment to full speed ahead. But without broad-based public understanding, there cannot be broad–based public support. No matter what level of executive authority is invoked, delay is inevitable, and delay, in the context of transformative adaptation, is losing.
Success depends on developing a plan of adaptation not driven by those behind the curtain but through a continuous public involvement in decisions that will so significantly determine the contours of public life. Such a plan may not be the one that would come from those pushing the current transformative effort.
It may accomplish less, but the key is it may accomplish something. Studies and polls show growing support for action to fight climate change. A recent Pew poll said 79% of Americans believe the U.S. should prioritize the development of alternative energy sources.
We can find ways to agree on the goals. We must now find ways to agree on the means. That, more than a push from the top, is the real job of executive action. Sell the people on a path of action and history shows that barriers will fall. Fail to do so and the likelihood of success is greatly diminished.
Returning to the spate of sea mammal fatalities, we see that the leading proponent of this continuously expanding goal for offshore wind capacity, Gov. Phil Murphy, has been conspicuously absent from the discussion. This offshore wind initiative is his plan. The driving force comes from his executive orders. He has the primary responsibility to explain it and defend it.
This responsibility is not met with vague promises of great jobs and a booming greener economy. There will be displacement and disruption as we go forward. There will be a need for sacrifice. Murphy must personally enter the discussions. He, not us, must be calling for answers to the sea mammal deaths and reporting those answers honestly.
It is time for the governor to step up and ameliorate the divisiveness that dominates the current discussions. Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, he will be attacked, at times unfairly, for someone’s political gain. Such risks come with the territory. In some circles, it is called leadership.
——–
From the Bible:
Where there is strife, there is pride, but wisdom is found in those who take advice. -Proverbs 13:10
