Globalism vs localism

A couple of stories today offer a useful contrast between the NIMBYism which all too often gets mixed up with genuine environmental concern, and a strong effort to manage resources better on a global scale.

On the NIMBYish side, the AP reports on a battle brewing in Vermont, where attempts to generate substantial amounts of wind power are running into an effort to prioritize the state's landscape over the environmental benefits of the move:

For a state that normally prizes environmental initiatives, the debate over wind power poses a thorny dilemma. Eager to embrace clean energy but leery about spoiling views, some communities are putting up stiff opposition to plans for new wind projects.

"It's a reflection of the deep environmental consciousness of this state," said environmentalist Bill McKibben, an author who has written about global warming. "People are rightly deeply attached to their landscape and they've done a terrific job in protecting it over the years."

In the 1930s, Vermonters rejected plans to build a parkway across the top of the Green Mountains, similar to Virginia's Blue Ridge Parkway, that was intended to create jobs and draw tourists. In the 1960s, the state was so concerned about its mountain vistas that it banned billboards, and later passed a landmark development review law to preserve ridge lines as Vermont's ski industry began expanding its resorts.

"One of Vermont's most deeply held environmental ethics is the protection and preservation of our mountaintops and ridge lines," said Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. Jim Douglas. "While the governor supports renewable energy . . . he cannot support the commercialization and industrialization of our mountaintops."

Environmentalists say that stance is unrealistic. They say large-scale wind towers must be part of the mix as the state seeks renewable energy alternatives in an age of global warming and rising fuel prices...

"For us to say we don't want wind turbines in Vermont is irresponsible," said James Moore, an environmental advocate with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. "If not wind, are we going to be supporting coal and mountain top removal? Are we going to support oil and aging nuclear power plants and nuclear waste?"

While an argument could plausibly be made that the state should be looking to conserve power as well rather than focussing simply on generation, that doesn't seem to be part of the debate. That's in part due to the amount of power which needs replacing (roughly 2/3 of the state's power is imported through contracts set to expire soon). But even more significant is the state's apparent perception that preserving its own skyline is worth the wider degradation caused by more damaging forms of electricity generation.

It may well be that there's sufficient support solely for that local perspective to make it the more effective at slowing down wind-power development in the short term. But by offering only a refusal to accept an environmentally-friendly project rather than any alternative, the state is in effect inviting other jurisdictions to look at their example of prioritizing local aesthetics over global environmental concerns.

In contrast, the Star reports on the latest developments in the battle over water in South America. There, Maude Barlow is leading a charge not only to keep water resources in public hands, but also to allocate existing resources to make clean water available to everybody:

In March, a British study called Pipe Dreams found that the private sector has done an abysmal job of connecting poor people to water.

Meanwhile, anti-privatization movements have posted an increasing number of victories.

Country by country, Suez is abandoning South America. Another multinational, RWE Thames, is divesting itself of all its water operations outside continental Europe.

At the Fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City last March, even the most enthusiastic supporters of privatization — the World Bank and the multinational water companies — spoke about privatization's failures.

"We have a really strong global social movement, and we need to step in with our own alternative," says Barlow. "We want to get water established as a human right in a United Nations' convention, one that also demands that water be delivered as a public service."...

She argues that for the half the money the World Bank has sunk into failed privatization schemes it could fund a transfer of best practices within the public sector. (Public systems manage the vast majority of the world's basic water services.)

Of course, the effort to keeps public goods in public hands is generally one worth making even on its own based on both increased efficiency and superior public representation. But the clean-water movement's message goes well beyond that level, by emphasizing both the need for local improvement and the transferrability of best practices. And it's simply an added bonus that that universal good can be achieved with currently-available funding - which makes for improved management of all of the resources involved.

None of the above is to suggest that local issues shouldn't also be given a great deal of attention, both for the sake of improving local conditions, and for the potential to discover wider issues which haven't yet been addressed. But those issues properly carry weight when their resolution is worthwhile in the larger scheme of things - not where a desire to avoid local development is detrimental when the bigger picture is considered.