The 5% solution?

I will start today by using the draft for yesterday's post that I never quite finished, and in hindsight I am sorry I did not. Here it is

The Friday before Thanksgiving.  The weekend before the week that has to be one of the least productive weeks of the year.  For some of you, it will be just another work week.  For other's a very short work week.  For the rest of us, somewhere in between. 

What is happening today.  Suppose to hear from the Superior Court judge on the Barnstable County case involving the Falmouth turbines.  Most significant point of the decision will be, and you don't need a crystal ball for this one, will the party on the "losing" end of the decision, appeal it. Actually, when the case(s) wind through the litigation stage, you could eventually see both sides appealing aspects of the eventual decision. 

As some of the legal experts out there have previously noted, the end result from the elgal perspective could still be years away. 

Why is a Barnstable County lawsuit relevant here in Fairhaven? Traction.  It can provide traction to either side of the debate here in town.  Whether the footing will be firm enough for the long haul will remain to be seen.   

For those of you who might have thought the issue was resolved locally, well just read the papers about the most recent Board of Health meeting.

If you don't know by now, the Superior Court Judge did in fact issue a preliminary decision. A 7 to 7 shutdown with a number of holidays and Sunday thrown in.

The Cape Cod Times  has an article on the matter.

Okay, what does this mean locally?

Well unless the decision is appealed to an appellate court, legally it means very little if anything at all. 

It is not a binding precedent. Don't even pretend to argue it does.  I am not posting any comment that espouses that theory even remotely, no matter what other points you make in your comment.

It does give the anti turbine people some traction politically, but even if the preliminary injunction ends up permanent, until that time it remain preliminary.  Again this decision is not binding precedent.  It could end up that way, but not if this case remains at the superior court level.  

But traction can nonetheless be an important thing. 

Some very interesting quirks that the court will have to answer if appealed, I think. But I am not going to get into them because quite frankly I don't intend to be dealing with the counters to the same from wannabe legal eagles. At this point, it is up to the Town of Falmouth as to whether it wishes to be bound by those quirks.

I will absolutely note that I don't have the pleadings or record of hearing, so to offer any opinion on the soundness of the legal basis for this decision at this time, well would be guess work.  Just from the reports though, it is a head scratcher, based on legal standards. 

Perhaps there was info presented. Until I see it, I will just scratch my head (by the way, if you intend to try and fill in those gaps, provide the actual information with reference.  As another "by the way", unless you intend to point out actual information as to why you know the decision to be wrong measure your comments accordingly).

I said it long ago, ultimately the matter is going to be decided by people in black robes, and unless The Town of Falmouth intends to role over and play dead, I can see this one heading up the appellate ladder.

I hope it does climb that ladder.  I hope the decision results in numerous similar lawsuits across the state.  I hope the same eventually result in a decision that will have statewide effect, and I hope our governor and legislature do something about the laws and regulations governing alternate energy to resolve the matter in black and white.  I would add the president and congress, but that would truly be a pipe dream,

However if we as a society are moving to the point where the standard becomes absolutely no harm to anyone, essentially what is ever going to happen going forward?

Before you are tempted to unilaterally jump down my throat, I bring that question up not as a standard to allow the continued existence of turbines as sited. 

I will agree there are issues on the local, state and national level that should have been better thought out at inception, and need to be addressed going forward.

If people have been harmed to this point, there are legal avenues for them to take.  Just as there were with airport construction and expansion, highway construction and cell towers (and that one ought to be a lesson in be careful for what you wish for, you might just get it.). 

Please leave out the "greater good argument" unless you want to propose just what the percentage of casualties can be.  

I absolutely do not criticize, feel any ill will, nor am outraged by people proceeding with legal actions to protect what they see as their rights. In fact I am looking forward to it in Fairhaven as a way to end this debate.

Yet just on the energy front as a society, how are our energy needs to be dealt with?

Two turbines in Fairhaven won't do it. We get that.  So what's the solution to two trubines here?

Nuclear? Anyone out there advocating more nuclear plants?  

You hear people say they aren't against turbines, just not near residential. First problem with that is how near is too near.  Second problem with that is the standard is "no harm to no one", well where is that going to actually be? 

I won't get into the vista/view argument.  Just be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that there are people opposing turbines solely because of the view.

Harm to birds and bats.  That pretty much eliminates them from anywhere, unless you have an acceptable kill level.

Out on the Great Plains or in the dessert.  Well no biggie assuming you can locate them near enough to transmission points, but not near someones undeveloped land, right?

Off shore?  Well that seems kind of okay so long as you put them far enough off shore to make them useless.

So where can turbines actually be located?

I won't even get into solar farms. Everyone's seemingly preferred option except when near of abbutting residences or can be seen. What about pipelines or natural gas tanks/facilities, or oil refineries  or what some offer as an alternative to turbines: clean coal plants.

I recently read on one of the sites a comment that the Northeast is just not appropriate at this time for turbines, and based on many arguments apparently neither is appropriate for natural gas facilities, coal plants, oil refineries, nuclear energy, etc.  Apparently the rest of the country is appropriate to generate power and fuel for us, and to suffer the adverse consequences we do not wish to live with.  

Sorry, but I find such arguments less than legitimate.  If you seek compassion for yourself, do not ask others to endure your burden in any form.

I would like to hear a concise argument that does not involve shifting the burden to somewhere else.  I know I won't, but I would like to.

There are many things that can be done to reduce energy needs and cut pollution.  We all know however expecting a voluntary effort to make those things happen is in fact not going to happen.  Mandates say along the lines the government imposes for say cell phone towers? Outlawing gas guzzlers.  Mandating you cannot heat a home over 65 degrees in the winter or cool it below 80 degrees in the summer?

So what is the solution?  

Let me know if you have one.

Enough for today.