Is Ugly Okay?--In Response to Emma's Post
I completely agree with Emma's point, but I think it is also time to start thinking about accepting what may be considered non-aesthetically pleasing in an effort to protect our environment. The St. Lawrence Cement controversy is very similar to the current bitter debate over whether to build a wind farm off the coast of Nantucket Island (http://www.capewind.org or the opposite side of the debate: http://www.windstop.org/) or even the current debate in our own area of Clinton, NY over whether or not to build new power lines (support- www.nyri.us, opposition- www.stopnyri.org). These are all three difficult debates; it is easy to see both points of view. Even the most environmentally friendly among us would find it hard to see some new, ugly power plant or wind farm in our own backyard. However, these new power systems are often much more environmentally friendly and although they may disrupt the lives of some locals, perhaps they should accept it in an effort to help clean up the world as a whole. This question over aesthetics and whose backyard new power systems are placed in seems to be the new big debate of our time. Is it worth disrupting a few people in order to help many? Both sides of the debate have some obviously selfish motives; the opposition doesn’t want to deal with the eye sore in their own area or the resulting pollution or local destruction and the power plants themselves, obviously, want to make money. What it all should come down to in my mind is whether or not these power systems are truly more environmentally friendly and if they will benefit the world as a whole. Unfortunately, in debates such as this, it tends to be those with money who make the decisions. In the Nantucket wind farm debate it is the very wealthy and prominent figures who are opposed to the windmills that they will see from the porches of their giant coastal mansions. It is interesting to note that one of the leading opponents of the proposed wind farm is the supposed environmentalist, Robert Kennedy Jr., known for his work with the Hudson Riverkeeper. So really, what are the motives for saving/protecting the Hudson?? Do we want to protect certain beautiful landscapes, those that house prominent citizens especially, while leaving lesser-known areas to suffer from new eyesores?? Or should we accept new eyesores that will help to protect the world as a whole? Or maybe reject every new eyesore at the risk of ruining the economic future of our world as a whole. It is a difficult situation and there really can’t be two winners…someone must deal with ugly new technologies in their pristine area. What is most important is not how prominent the figures who live in the area are, but rather whether the positives outweigh the negatives for the town/county/globe as whole.
posted by Ceci Laseter @ 9:42 AM
4 Comments:
Emma and Ceci,
You are on to an important issue. *If* you believe SLC's data, you could argue that the "environment" might have been better off with a new plant in Greenport than the old plant in Catskill. *If* that were the case, how would we weigh an improvement in air quality against the "pollution" of Hudson's viewscape?
Professor,
If it were the case that SLC was right, it would certainly be in the best interest of the city to build the plant. The town would get all the benefits of the plant; jobs, industry, tax base, and a better environment. To me, these benefits would vastly outweigh the "pollution" of the landscape. As early posts have pointed out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is a matter of personal taste. Personally, I think some of the older factories in the Hudson Valley and in the rest of New England, many of which are now abandoned and decaying, are really quite beautiful. While I can't necessarily say the same about the proposed plant, it's emblematic of the point. If the river belongs to everyone and it takes special requirements to change it, should there also be more thought put into keeping the status quo?
For the sake of this argument, I will assume that SLC's data was correct - the new plant in Greenport would cause less pollution than the old one in Catskill - though I am not convinced that this is the case.
If it was true that, at full operation, the new plant would cause less pollution than the old plant, it may seem environmentally responsible to move the plant to the Greenport location. However, there is a huge environmental cost associated with development, including the energy associated with running construction equipment, the change to the watershed due to pavement, the mining that is necessary to obtain the raw materials for building, and the disruption of an ecosystem to put in a new plant without being able to restore ecosystem at the location of the old plant. Aesthetics aside, given the environmental cost of construction and new development and though the new plant would have slightly lower total emissions, moving the plant cannot be justified as the environmentally responsible choice. The argument for development of a new plant in Greenport would have to draw on economic reasoning only to establish validity.
However, as a representative for SLC, don't expect me to argue this way in class today.
Ceci, you bring up an excellent point. I would consider myself an environmentalist, but I also try to be open-minded. In the case of wind farms, it seems highly inconsistent with an environmental mindset to be opposed to something that has the potential to make America energy independent. I can certainly understand that individuals would be opposed to these large structures, but in the search for alternative energy, wind and solar power seem to be the cleanest technologies with the least environmental impact. I can also understand concerns about birds getting killed when the windmill is working, but birds can also die from oil spills and become ill when they inhale toxic pollution from coal plants. The greater opposition comes from wealthy opponents who don’t want to look at windmills from their beachfront homes.
Yesterday, I was driving with my family and passed a factory that appeared to be near a quarry. Though the structures and the conveyor belt were by no means beautiful, they were not offensive in the landscape. The buildings were mostly low-lying and were in a valley, presumably to reduce the visible impact. This example illustrates that factories can coexist with residential development, that industry and towns do not have to be enemies, as was the case with Hudson and St. Lawrence Cement. So too, I believe that those who want to construct the windmills off of Cape Cod and those who oppose the development will be able to come to a compromise, which hopefully will be an agreement that begins the path to energy independence.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home