EDITORIAL: Go with care on energy projects

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

One of the great conundrums of our time is how to maintain the most comfortable and convenient lifestyle in the history of the human race without destroying the environment. Our climate-controlled homes and offices depend on oil and coal; so do our cars, which require expensive roads that shred forests and farms.

So it’s understandable, and encouraging, to see broad support for alternative energy in a recent survey of subscribers to IBJ Daily, IBJ’s e-mail newsletter.

The survey, published in the Sept. 14 Focus section, showed nearly three of four respondents agreed that wind and solar are the best options for the future.

The enthusiasm appears sensible enough. Why not harvest seemingly limitless wind and sunlight and eliminate the pollution inherent to fossil fuels? Legendary Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens made much the same argument when he promoted wind energy and natural gas during an appearance at Indiana University this month.

Yet, a national study issued in August by The Nature Conservancy, a not-for-profit whose mission is to protect ecologically sensitive land and water, raises yellow flags even for wind and solar—not to mention biofuels.

These alternative energy forms require lots of space, the study warned. So much so that existing energy mandates, along with the carbon cap-and-trade legislation under consideration in Congress, would force the United States to devote a whopping 79,500 square miles to alternative energy in addition to land currently covered by biofuel crops, wind turbines and other alternative energy uses. The additional space would be equivalent to twice the land area of Indiana.

The Nature Conservancy didn’t use the study to push a particular alternative energy. However, it did leverage the madness of “energy sprawl” to advocate for redoubling efforts to conserve.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican, pounced on the study to call for building more nuclear plants—an idea also heavily favored by IBJ poll respondents. But study author Rob McDonald cautioned that the plants require massive amounts of water, not to mention that they churn out waste that lasts thousands of years (likely the main reason few who responded to the poll favored storing nuclear waste in Indiana).

The Nature Conservancy called it right on this one. We can’t destroy nature to try to save it. We must emphasize conservation.

This isn’t to say new energy projects should be scuttled. Rather, as McDonald suggested in subsequent media interviews, new projects should be located thoughtfully.

Minimize destruction of natural habitat by offering incentives to build on degraded or abandoned land. Protect sensitive species.

These responsibilities fall to federal, state and local policymakers, as well as to companies that develop energy. Let’s hope they exercise wisdom.•


To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.