Column: Government

Talking Renewable Energy: a Cognitive Dissonance

By Jill Kuraitis, 7-21-09

Last week’s Boise summit of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region organization’s leaders and members was a forum for presenting research and new ideas about energy, land and water, economic development and more. It was a serious endeavor with hundreds of impressive minds who contributed, but it fell short of success.

Something was missing.

PNWER has a noble purpose, which is to form and implement a collective vision about the future of our region, consistently update and educate its members on the changes and innovations that affect common issues, and organize working groups, keeping everybody on track. It’s an impressive coalition, and the conference was one of the best I’ve seen in producing tangible plans with accountability checks and ways to measure results.

But whether it was mindset or neglect, the energy innovations track of the PNWER conference was strangely weak on proclaiming a fundamental concept about saving the planet: the sense of urgency and ethical responsibility to respond in human terms. It was missing the bedrock “we must do this to rescue the earth and our children” – a statement of moral imperative that should come before, and with, talk of money and profit.

It was also alarmingly devoid of serious discussion about conserving energy instead of producing more of it.

It wasn’t, however, a gathering of unprincipled leaders - far from it. The collective sum of business and government experience, scientific IQ, and dedication to excellence from the attendees was an extra-heavy total. And it isn’t that PNWER ignores ecological and environmental ideas. In its mission statement and goals there are the statements that PNWER exists partly “to increase the economic well-being and quality of life for all citizens of the region,” and to “achieve continued economic growth while maintaining the region’s natural beauty and environment.” Some speakers did use data and analysis to address the environmental impact of their research or projects.

The program handed out at the summit has the tagline “Global Challenges – Northwest Imperatives - Through Excellence, Innovation, and Leadership.”

Yet in energy presentations made by impressive authorities, the theme was mitigate, not fix.  Environmental impact standards were quoted with “acceptable levels” instead of “better than acceptable levels” or used terms like “start reducing by 2015” instead of “immediate reduction with the urgent goal of elimination.”

Milt Wakefield of Bruce Power, an earnest and sincere man, repeated some pro-nuclear old saws like, “you get more radiation flying to Hawaii than you do around a nuclear generator” – and a polite question or two from nuclear skeptics were dispensed with as if mere fluff. The atmosphere was markedly restrained, almost timid. It begged the question of whether ideological dissent would be tolerated in this circle. When talking about the politics of nuclear energy production and the storage of nuclear waste, speakers made it clear they were tired of having to justify their positions, and paid only lip service to possible problems.

A presentation by Idaho Office of Energy Resources administrator Paul Kjellander was crammed with facts and statistics about renewable energy. Smoothly delivered, Kjellander’s speech included the statement “We need to recognized the concept of blurred borders – there are no borders” which made me scribble, “alien concept to Idahoans?” in my notes. Kjellander’s statement sounded encouraging until he continued along purely economic lines, saying, “We may need to play broker in how resources get to market.”

Missing was the idea of blurred borders as a cooperative moral concept. Also missing was mention of conservation; of usage quotas; of cutting back. In an interview with Kjellander after his speech, I tried twice to get him to talk about conservation programs, and after a brief “of course we have to educate people” or its equivalent he would immediately turn back to his blizzard of energy talking points. 

The confab at the Boise Centre included hundreds of people - engineers and scientists of many specialties, elected officials, researchers, bureaucrats and administrators.  The keynoters were Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick, the Canadian Premier of the Northwest Territories Floyd Roland and CEOs of several huge energy companies and projects such as Stephen Wright of the Bonneville Power Administration. To differing degrees, all these highly educated men are somehow engaged in trying to solve environmental problems.

How strange that we didn’t hear more from them than a passing whisper about global ecological responsibility and serious conservation requiring sacrifice or inconvenience. But plenty was heard about stimulus money.

Ecological ethics opinions often sound like this: economic excuses that entities sometimes make to justify their lack of planning and nonexistent or inadequate solutions to environmental emergencies are at best a problem, and at worst an ethical failure. The duties and responsibilities to others of global ethics means decisions should never be made based on our interests, without including the interests of others. 

Pure principle that ignores the complexity of the biggest problem we’ve faced so far – including its economic complexities - that’s no good.

The captains of industry, in their most ruthless form, reject the idea that the interests of others are part of a morally upright business plan. That’s no good either.

Disappointingly, the PNWER summit lacked humility – and humanity – in not basing its work on environmental ethics, and the valuable conference murmured with a strange cognitive dissonance. The voice which should have been louder was either muzzled or muffled, so the important words were only distantly heard.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.