NIMBY

The Obama administration is trying to balance conservation demands with its goal of radically increasing solar and wind generation by identifying areas suitable for large-scale projects across the West.

And in the case of this article, that balance is a necessity of finding a path between the "Drill, baby. Drill!" mindset of those addicted to oil and the "Save the trees!" mindset of die hard environmentalists. There are some basic truths to being an American, and one of them is that We use a lot of natural resources. We really don't think a lot about where and how are goods and services come from. There is a push to shop increasingly for locally produced goods, and the trend in autos is headed in the right direction. However, there is simply no comparison between the fuel efficiency of a private auto, be it ever so green, and a nice full metro bus (think in terms of passenger miles per gallon).

Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.

And here we see some of the problem at the highest level. We cannot have simultaneously warm houses, a transportation infrastructure, Hi-Def televisions, and the millions of other comforts we take for granted, and maintain a Not In My BackYard mentality about energy production. Switching from drilled oil and mined coal means chewing up hundreds of thousands of acres of land suitable for wind and solar farms somewhere.

“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area.

So if not there, where? If not now, when? If the Obama administration is to move forward with radical programs to produce wind and solar energy production, then that means - in no uncertain terms - that the process has to move along rapidly and as inexpensively as possible. That means using lands that are low-hanging fruit: Undeveloped, optimal, and not so very useful for other human activity.

I offer a proposal for We The People. Let plans for radical development of new energy production occur. In exchange, we preserve greenspace and wild lands in other locations by limiting urban sprawl. No more McMansions on 1 acre lots of former farm fields. No more new subdivisions of 3,500 sq. ft. houses for two or three people a mile or three out of town for people who want to pretend they are Thoreau living at Walden (albeit with a significantly increased impact). No more 4-lane roads out to the 'burbs where every single adult commutes into the nearby city, often in separate cars. Instead We need to favor urban infill projects. We need to stop subsidizing things that encourage sprawl and waste of energy resources (like highway development at the expense of mass transit infrastructure).

Something has to give. We know it. We just don't want it to limit Us, personally. As long as limits affect someone else, someone either richer or poorer than me, then such plans are fine, right? I have news for you. Unless you are already living in a dense population area and biking, riding a bus, or ride-sharing to work, you are going to feel the effects of the next decade in a profound way.

No more wars for oil. Let's evolve.