Uh, About That Revolution in ‘Green’ Energy …

May 29, 2008

In Connecticut, where junk science and eco-alarmism prevail, most plans for hydrocarbon-based energy facilities are dead on arrival.

A terminal for liquefied natural gas 10 miles off the coast of East Haven? “Monstrous,” according to the state’s press conference-addicted attorney general, who along with the governor and state legislators, pledged to fight Broadwater Energy in court for years had New York politicians not torpedoed the terminal.

A “clean coal” power plant in Montville? “There is nothing clean about coal,” grumbled an official from the Toxics Action Center of New England, which along with the Norwich Area Global Warming Action Group, fought the proposal.

A diesel-fueled power plant in Lebanon? Residents of the town and neighboring municipalities have coalesced to defeat it, claiming “irritants from the plant will directly cause inflammation of the bronchi and induce asthma, especially in children and the elderly.” (Diesel “runs, I think, contrary to everything Lebanon is,” asserted one activist.)

A natural-gas pipeline stretching from Branford to Long Island? The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection denied the company’s application in 2004, a decision just upheld by a federal court. “Islander East-type projects pit multinational energy conglomerates against citizens, the environment and local economies,” thundered a lobbyist with the Connecticut Fund for the Environment’s “Save the Sound” program.

Fossil-fuel facilities represent the past, Nutmeg State elites tell us. The future is “green” energy, supplied in limitless quantities by Mother Nature, and free of the emissions responsible for “global climate change.”

It’s a carefully crafted morality play, featuring nefarious villains -- oil and gas companies, utilities that refuse to change their ways -- versus heroic defenders of both the planet and public health. Politicians, with broad voter support, have showered the companies seeking to capitalize on our inevitable abandonment of hydrocarbons with hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, subsidies, and tax breaks.

There’s just one problem with Connecticut’s glorious new era of green power: Citizens’ commitment to renewable energy may be a kilometer wide, but it’s only a millimeter deep.
Take the recent donnybrook over a proposed biodiesel-generating facility in Suffield. Proponents of renewables have long argued that growing fuel makes more sense than importing petroleum from abroad. A glance at a grocery bill reveals the unintended consequences of such a policy, but the biodiesel lobby does make a few compelling arguments for its product. For example, some of its feedstock, including animal fat, used grease, and potentially algae, does not displace cropland needed to grow food. Biodiesel’s carbon-monoxide, particulate-matter, and ozone-forming emissions are roughly half of those generated by traditional diesel. And its sulfur emissions are essentially zero.

So when CT Biodiesel came to town last year, Suffield residents jumped at the opportunity to host the state’s first large-scale biofuel refinery -- right?

Not exactly. Even The Hartford Courant’s far-left editorial page averred that at times, opposition from locals “verged on hysteria.” The Suffield planning and zoning commission denied the company’s permit application earlier this month. Dozens of jobs and CT Biodiesel’s offer to supply town vehicles with 35,000 gallons of fuel a year couldn’t compete against reckless claims about explosions, excessive truck traffic, and chemical releases.

The story is similar in Plainfield, where an energy consortium seeks to build a 37.5-megawatt power plant fueled by scrap wood. Concerned Citizens for the Quiet Corner rose in instant opposition to Plainfield Renewable Energy, describing its plant as “entirely against the … Plan of Conservation and Development’s objectives of keeping the rural character of the town and protecting the health and of its citizens.”

Even the low-impact project proposed by Watertown resident Kurt Karpavich didn’t stand a chance of acceptance. Hoping to benefit from a blustery backyard, last year he applied for a height variance to erect a wind turbine. When the variance was granted by the town’s zoning board of appeals, neighbors sued, claiming “harmony with the surrounding area and overall neighborhood stability” would be damaged. In February, Watertown’s planning and zoning commission denied Karpavich’s application for a residential windmill, and given the time and expense of legal action, he is unlikely to appeal the decision.

As Cato Institute natural-resource scholar Jerry Taylor predicted in 2003, all of the squabbles that regularly occur over hydrocarbon facilities are “there, waiting to happen, in the renewable-energy sector.” That’s certainly the case in Connecticut, where the road to a green future appears to have plenty of potholes.

With both “dirty” and “clean” energy sources off the table, forward-thinking Nutmeggers should stock up on quilts, washboards, and candles.

D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and public-policy researcher. He can be reached at muskacolumn@cox.net.

# # # # #