We live in a world where problems are plentiful, solutions few, and agreed-upon actions virtually non-existent. Our society has not always been this way. Our nation has shared many triumphs over the years since its founding and few of us would disagree. Big solutions for big problems require unity.
Some problems have good ideas and some have bad ideas.
Our history is filled with stories of spectacular feats of engineering and even more impressive, colossal failures. Sometimes we can calculate the fallout from dumb ideas and sometimes we can’t.
In the news this week, a Dutch scientist has proposed damning (note the spelling) the North Sea with enormous structures in order to save millions of people from the effects of sea-level rise associated with climate change. The project would involve building dykes from the northern coast of France at the entrance to the English Channel and from northern Scotland some three hundred miles to Norway. Early estimates of the cost run from *only* 250 to 500 billion Euros.
If you look at cost only, such an enormous project would certainly spark division. After all, wouldn’t it be better to implement policies and practices to lower our carbon footprint to prevent sea-level rise so we don’t have to build the dam structures in the first place?
Transforming our energy solutions to renewables comes with a cost, as well, but at least it will provide economic benefits in the way of more energy-sector jobs and better pay.
If this sounds like a good idea to you, I would encourage you to look closer. Walling off the sea and diverting the rivers that flow into it would cause one of the largest ecological collapses in the history of mankind. How does it benefit us when thousands of species will need to find new waters or die out? This is not to mention the shipping and freight nightmares such a project would create, increasing costs on everything from barrels of oil to bags of tea.
Closer to home, we have to navigate some dubious thinking ourselves. Certain politicians I will not name warn that wind energy isn’t a good solution because it lowers property values, makes noise, kills birds, and causes cancer.
I want to take a closer look at that. No evidence suggests that property values decrease with proximity to wind farms or that turbines can cause cancer. Wind turbines create far less noise than oil refineries and the fossil fuel industry likely kills millions of birds per year.
According to some estimates, wind installations kill about 160,000 birds each year. That sounds like a high number until you consider that birds far outnumber humans. Scientists estimate the bird population at around four hundred billion. In terms of deaths per capita, Americans are three hundred times more likely to die from gun violence than birds are to be killed by wind turbines.
The idea that we should not pursue wind as an energy source is fallacious at best. Wind isn’t a perfectly green energy source, but truly, there is no such thing. By measuring total carbon emissions from the manufacture and transport of wind turbines, we can deduce that wind is much more efficient than coal or natural gas. Hydropower, solar, and nuclear have their own issues, but are all miles better than the dirty, polluting energy sources we seem stuck on today.
We don’t need to dam it when we can preserve it. If we truly hand out annual Darwin awards, I can think of many people talented enough to earn one. Should we really settle for the solutions of the galactically stupid (Thanks, A Few Good Men)?
Our world needs big ideas, not stupid ones. Europe should know better, and so should we.