close to home

cnn reports that on the tug hill plateau here in NY not everyone appreciates the wind farm.

This is eerily similar to a conversation I had with my father not long ago. He lives farther out in the country (albeit 5 minutes from the city I grew up in) but it definitely has a more rural feel. Anyway, aside from always lamenting the arrival of new neighbors and the slow evolution to a more suburban setting he has been an opponent of the windfarm that went up on the ridge some 5 miles away, on the grounds that it spoils the view. I always counter with the notion of acid rain or fallout from nine mile point as being the alternatives. No dice. Anyway, when his neighbor put in a home scale turbine he was furious, the noise being of primary concern. Personally, I live in a more urban/suburban setting, noise unfortunately is a part of my life, and I could just as easily adapt to that, but he has been "in the country" for almost 17 years now, so this is a big change. Like the man in the article he has also grown up with a sense of respect for the land and tried to pass that value on. The part I found ironic was that the son was protesting the windfarm on the grounds that it spoils the natural beauty. Most of my readers are probably thinking "that windfarm might be the only thing that saves it." But we have to understand that no solution is perfect, has absolutely zero impact, and is universally acceptable to everyone, because not everyone places value on the same things. Ask this man if he cares about the health of the land and I'm sure he will say "of course I do" but there may be other factors he values more.

noise is energy, energy that could be put to better use, so as turbines become more efficient, and quieter I imagine this will be less of an issue, but there is still the visual impact, and well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While some see independence and a bright future, others see the spoiling of natural scenery. Progress does not come without cost, the difference now is that the cost is no longer being hidden to society. If we want to dance, we will need to pay the piper, we can't keep letting our children or our mother pay the tab. I suppose it is the same with home gardens. Neighborhood covenants and traditionally minded neighbors concerned with maintaining property value (one of the last remaining legal forms of segregation) will always oppose widescale and visible gardens, chicken coops, etc on the grounds that they are an eyesore. Personally I feel that endless undifferentiated monocultural lawns are an obscenity, and likely no covenant board would ever tolerate my kicking and screaming for change. Is there a compromise? Is there a way to appeal to more traditionally minded folks that what is being introduced in the form of a windfarm over the hill, or a garden in the yard is not the destruction of something dear but an evolution into something more valuable? Will we one day see a time when the annual yield of a home orchard or garden is included in the for sale listing? When smart home shoppers will prefer homes where the soil is well cared for and trees are productive?

The entire "green" movement is not intrinsically a shift in purchasing habits (despite its marketing of such). It is a shift of values, and an accounting of the full cost of our choices. When we make that clear, we will no longer find ourselves swimming against the current.