When it comes right down to it folks, we are living in a most confusing time. It’s next to impossible to discern the truth of a matter and get credible sources of info on anything you may be interested in. Media sources are sometimes biased and bought, the government is all over the map, and big industry is slick and looking out for No. 1 (and guaranteed, you ain’t No. 1, sweet pea!). Issues are complex and we, as the public, are subject to deceptive ad campaigns, industry greenwashing, and government spin in most egregious ways.
To be honest, sometimes we don’t even know what many of the terms that are being thrown around mean. Semantics have been undermined, and targeted confusion wins the day. What the hell?
So, after years of targeted research, attendance at industry and government sponsored conferences, participation in numerous industry/media/government hosted dog and pony shows, and invitations to “educational” seminars proffered by our local institutions of higher learning, I have compiled a short but concise list … a handy-dandy glossary of terms as it were, to make an understanding of offshore wind energy more relatable and easier to understand.
Done deal: Magical thinking at its finest! A description by government officials, and pro-wind NGOs to describe an experimental project that they really want to come to fruition for illogical and greedy reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with rectifying global warming or dealing with climate change. An easy, untrue answer to public inquiries to keep them from speaking out against the project because they have been told it’s too late—”it’s a done deal” Jeez! How disingenuous is that?
Fossil fuel funded: A favorite epithet thrown out to malign folks fighting against offshore wind that’s almost never the case and so hypocritical. Rarely do the mudslingers realize that they are accusing people of something that they are guilty of themselves. The wind industry is heavily funded by oil companies, (in fact many of the wind energy companies are oil companies) making this tactic illogical and the height of ignorance. But hey, parroting the government and poorly informed government officials is so easy to do. Who wants to really think for themselves after all, right?
Green energy: The ultimate in industry spin deceptions! A description so vague in its parameters but so powerful in its ability to engender blind following and support that it has the capacity to keep intelligent people from using their own heads for something besides a hat rack. A phrase that turns humans into corporate parrots and triggers a generation’s collective angst and guilt over royally screwing up the Earth and oceans. The ultimate corporate/government clarion call to fill their pockets in the name of a “green new future.” How many times have we seen this phrase used in the recent past? How many times have folks really thought about what it means in terms of personal responsibility?
Renewable: A misnomer and complete semantic misappropriation of a clearly defined word. There is not a single aspect of the offshore wind industry that is renewable, end of story. Offshore wind graveyards and landfills tell the story of a word that never should even be in this glossary. But it’s such a great word and sentiment, is it not?
Port revitalization: What a pretty concept for a really horrendous process: a complete industrialization of our coast. The only thing that will be revitalized are the coffers of the port entities and the companies building and running the show. Our small harbors will be irreparably impacted and our thriving local industries most certainly won’t be revitalized, rather they will have the vitality sucked right out of them. Who the hell wants to go to a beach right next to an industrial port with staged wind turbines floating offshore and huge diesel-belching ships tooling around? Who wants to go to a national estuary where all the wildlife has been chased away by enormous boats docking at “revitalized” industrial docks that have been built over environmentally sensitive habitats and in otters’ favorite places to raise their pups?
Scientific monitoring program: A nonexistent program that if it were in place would keep the permits for offshore surveys from being viable. An absolutely necessary mitigation that none of our California or federal agencies seem to be able to accommodate or find important enough to mandate or enforce. Something that on the surface and in depth sounds good but is not being done to accommodate for the wind industry’s inability to comply with environmental mitigation parameters. We totally trust the wind companies to completely adhere to unmonitored and unenforced permit mandates, don’t we?
Responsible offshore wind development: The final in a list of industry absurdities. There is no such thing! As shown in numerous offshore wind developments both here and abroad, the industry is not a responsible or viable source of energy. It is environmentally destructive, economically infeasible and expensive, and is an inefficient and highly variable source of energy with no long-term benefits to our environment and with no overall positive impact on worldwide carbon emissions and overall global warming. The word “responsible” in tandem with the words “offshore wind” is the epitome of co-opting a word or concept—the ultimate in semantic misappropriation!
So, there you have just a small but illuminating glossary, one that if researched and acted on will help you save our amazing and vital Central Coast from a destructive and rapacious industry and the clueless folks that have swallowed their B.S. hook, line, and sinker. Δ
Mandy Davis from Los Osos is with the REACT Alliance, which aims to “protect the Central Coast from the destructive impacts of offshore wind energy development.” Write a response for publication by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Summer Guide 2024.
I wonder how a wind farm 30 miles offshore destroys our “amazing and vital Central Coast?”
The oil derricks off the coast of Santa Barbara had early problems, but have been a staple of the coast for over 50 years now.
And, though I know most of you don’t trust the government, the Department of Energy has compiled a list of successful wind farms across the world. The British and Norwegians, in particular are utilizing wind. The Hornsea Wind Farm in the North Sea can power “more than 1.4 million homes.” That is only slightly fewer than our Diablo Canyon, without the risk of a nuclear meltdown.
I urge you to do your own research on this topic. Combined with solar and some nuclear, offshore wind is badly needed for the world to wean itself off of fossil fuels, which, if continued to be burned at the present rate, will cause more catastrophe to our oceans than any wind farms. Start here:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/….
Apparently Michael Smith is unaware of the problems with wind energy in Britain. Britain can no longer be used as an example to support offshore windmills. I think Mandy Davis is totally correct.
The only problem with green energy in the UK is a failure of will by the British government to adequately meet its zero-emission goals. Scientists continue to warn that if we do not move as expeditiously as possible away from fossil fuels, the very worst impacts of climate change will be felt. Period. No argument you can make will change that.
Want to know why recent tornadoes in the midwest seem stronger and more frequent? It can be traced to extremely warm ocean surface temperatures. In fact, NOAA predicts an above average hurricane system because the Atlantic Ocean is at near records for high temperatures.
The Hornsea 1 project currently powers over one million homes, but you are right that bigger wind farms are in peril, not because of the technology, but a failure in the politics. I fear the same will happen here if Trump is elected. Mandy Davis and all the other Nimby types in Morro Bay will be ecstatic because Trump will stop that wind farm and any future funding on day one. Of course, if Trump gets in, you can expect even more radical change than just “drill, baby, drill.” At that point, I stop caring.
Unfortunately, the wind turbines will not just be 30 miles offshore, as Michael Smith speculates. Plans are being made to turn the Morro Bay harbor and estuary into an industrial port to serve the offshore wind energy industry and the multinational foreign corporations who are making bank on US subsidies (aka your tax dollars). Increased noise air and light pollution for all the people who live, work and play here as well as for animals in the estuary, including the endangered Southern Sea Otter – would they even survive construction? Oh and then just wait until the 300-400 foot ships start arriving, chugging along on fossil fuels. I could go on and on but will stop here.
I wonder if Nicole Dorfman has sources for this conjecture.
incidentally, I would say that if Mandy, Gary and Nicole are so worried, a simple vote for Donald Trump will be the way to go.
Trump will eliminate any chance that we have of mitigating anthropomorphic climate change—he’s already talking a third term. But, I suppose a dictator who will make unilateral decisions about renewable energy (oh, sorry, I guess that’s a misnomer) is the best way to preserve Morro Bay.
Just don’t complain that in 20 years when the ocean begins to suffer from acidification the fisherman are permanently put out of business. Because that’s what over heated oceans mean. And, currently, the oceans are hotter than they’ve ever been. Look it up.
Off shore wind farms could alleviate that. And, I would remind these folks that oil derricks off of Santa Barbara did not mean the end of that city’s beauty, despite the 1969 oil spill (it is still considered among the top 20 tourist attractions in California, a distinction Morro Bay does not have). The great thing about wind is it doesn’t spill. Obviously some fish and birds may succumb, but doubting the numbers will be significant.
While I understand the NIMBY sentiment about Morro Bay, I believe that getting away from fossil fuels is an imperative. Look it up and then tell me I’m wrong. We are at a serious tipping point right now and wind farms can be an important step in reversing warming. Why do you think scientist are screaming about it.
So, blah, blah, blah, you’ve made up your minds. Your weather is fine. Who cares? Scrap the wind farm so that a few fisherman can continue an antiquated lifestyle. Ok, I’m done. I’ll shut up. Trump will be elected anyway and it won’t matter. I’ll be dead soon and your children and grandchildren will simply have to live with your misguided decisions. But remember, Cassandra warned you.
“Renewable: A misnomer and complete semantic misappropriation of a clearly defined word. There is not a single aspect of the offshore wind industry that is renewable, end of story.” Mandy seems to not understand what renewable energy means. Renewable refers to the SOURCE of energy, not the means to capture it. The Oxford Dictionary defines it this way: “energy from a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind or solar power.”
Looks like Mandy is aso unaware of the OSW monitoring programs that are currently operating on the East Coast.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-sto…
Mandy Davis claims that the fossil fuel industry rarely funds campaigns against OSW. This is really laughable. She derides the OSW industry for their alleged corporate greed, but expects us to believe that the fossil fuel industry is an innocent bystander? I don’t think so….
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/t…