What are we asking for?

PubPublic rail in the US and Europe

One of the major benefits of the last couple of “isolation years,” is that a lot of us are working remotely. While I personally don’t enjoy working, living, eating, sleeping, and chewing on the furniture around the clock in my own home, I do appreciate the opportunity to regularly convene with colleagues, agencies, and affinity groups on Zoom meetings without having to drive or fly anywhere. And as a consequence, these online meetings significantly diminish the environmental and economic costs!

But another advantage is that meeting regularly with people in complimentary or intersecting fields really enriches our shared experience – and amplifies the impact of our collective efforts. As I have mentioned before, being on screen with others in any particular discussion somewhat levels the playing field. In these meetings our voice can be as influential as we are willing to assert.

Granted, there are various levels of engagement and decorum in these various meetings; from public presentations by Government Agencies and in academic convenings, where participation is more staid; industry pow-wows, where it is a bit of a feeding frenzy, and then the regular, more collegial affinity group ‘Zooms’ – in which folks who are largely on the same page, strategizing on our mutual concerns.

These Zooms are the meetings I enjoy most; getting to know some really talented people over time, on issues for which we have a common passion and diverse applicable expertise.

Of course these assemblies are not all “skittles and beer.” We do have differing opinions, and we are subject to the various policies of our respective organizations. It was under this rubric that one of my groups determined that we were not a “coalition,” rather we were more like a “network.”

This particular group gathers under the banner of “Responsible Offshore Wind Development.” I couldn’t agree more. But per the previous paragraph, we’re not all singing from the same hymnal as to what constitutes “responsible” when it comes to the industrialization of the ocean.

If you have been tracking our work on offshore wind, you know that we view it as a “balance of harms” argument. And in this context we need to advance a “Responsible Use of Energy” proposition in the first paragraph – before we whittle away at what constitutes ‘responsible’ ways of generating that energy.

Looking under the hood a bit on “sustainable energy,” we find that pretty much all of the auto manufacturers are “meeting the need” with their various versions of “EVs.”

Two examples to punctuate the point: When Chevrolet is rolling out their all-electric Silverado, and the EV Ford F-150 includes a feature where you can turn off or on internal combustion sounds, we really need to re-evaluate our national transportation priorities.

Meanwhile, discussions of localizing production of goods, urban mass-transit, and interstate high-speed rail, all seem to be buried in noise about “economic opportunities” and “sustainable jobs” – particularly here in the US.

Every other technologically advanced nation seems to have grasped these principles.

So while OCR is definitely onboard with “Responsible Wind Energy development,” I find the discussions in ALL of these meeting groups a classic case of putting the ‘cart before the horse’ effort.

We can meet the vast the expansion of sustainable jobs, encourage localized power generation and distribution, and develop interstate transportation systems that move us from where we are to where we want to be – all without the rigmarole of expanded interstate power lines, airports, and widening freeway systems.

But when Nissan, PG&E, Subaru, General Motors, Southern California Edison, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are behind the expansion efforts, it is unlikely we will get there anytime soon.

Unless we ask for it.