 | Congestion Pricing Gathering Momentum | The Oil Drum: Local | Where Should We Try Congestion Pricing First? |  |
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
As I read the post on Bloomberg's sustainability endeavor, the focus on what happens within the boundaries of NYC is a big concern. I'm not seeing the same concern or much of an acknowledgement of how much NYC's footprint extends outside its boundaries. The focus seems to be NYC as an the point of input or an output only. The fact that NYS requires hundreds of square miles of watershed in upstate to be "sustainable" doesn't seem to be part of the equation. Likewise, energy infrastructure near and far to NYS will help make it
"sustainable."
Here is a project (Broadwater LNG) that will physically make off limits a portion of Long Island Sound by virtue of the permanent security buffer that will surround it. The waters of Long Island Sound belong to the people. They are held in public trust by NYS and it's possible that a portion of LIS will be alienated by NYS or NYS will be forced by the federal government to alienate it. The prospect of alienation of public waters is very disturbing to many Long Islanders and should be of concern to all NYers, including city residents.
My comment here is not meant to single out NYC. There is a significant lack of awareness or concern on LI for how much Long Island's needs are met by off-island resources. Long Island is running undersea cables to power plants in NJ or further west to meet its needs. Gas pipelines are being run through farmland and neighborhoods in PA and NJ to deliver gas to LI.
We can all expect to have our energy resources move closer to us in the future, be it via distributed generation or on-site solar, wind or fuel cells. A floating LNG terminal in Long Island Sound could be considered as another example of that transition. But whether one considers Broadwater or good or bad thing, I would hope that it at least gets consideration.
And hey, I'm not saying we have major issues in planning for the future of energy. Obviously conservation efforts really need to be ramped up considerably.
And perhaps you can further elaborate on why the loss of that portion of the Long Island Sound will be so impactful. Does that mean fishing or pleasure vessels can't go there? That does not sound like a major loss to me. If anything, keeping those area off-limits might actually improve the replenishment of the fish stocks.
To elaborate on the security (buffer zone) issue, yes, there will be a no-go zone for any vessel (except the LNG tankers) that will, in theory, be enforced by the Coast Guard. The impact of this loss is in the eye of the beholder.
Putting principle aside for now, the physical loss would be equivalent to a private enterprise being granted exclusive and permanent use of one acre of Central Park (more or less in the middle of the park). This acre would be inaccessible to the public. There would also be weekly deliveries (say, by truck) to this secure acre of parkland that would require temporarily closing (for 15 to 30 minutes) the access road to and within the park over which the truck passed, including any roads or paths that crossed it, while the delivery vehicle transited the public portion of the park.
You may find giving up an acre of Central Park to be acceptable, you may not. Perhaps it depends on the public good, if any, provided by the private enterprise controlling the parcel. Let's say the purpose is to exploit a known reserve of oil under Central Park. Still OK? Let's give it a much more benign purpose: to install PV array (on the ground) to operate as a power plant. Still OK? Perhaps equally benign: a wind turbine (ignoring the issues of height, visibility, noise and potential bird strikes) in the middle of the fenced-in, one-acre parcel. I suspect that there are still people who wouldn't have a problem losing access to the one-acre parcel for the wind turbine.
It's still apples and oranges (LNG vs. wind turbine). We can bring them a little closer together by imaging that there is the potential for the turbine to throw ice during the winter. It's a very small probability that it will throw ice, but if the ice does get thrown, it will land well outside the security zone, in the area where the public can go. Or, the turbine could fall over, or throw a blade. Someone could get hurt or killed. The probability of any of these events happening is very low, but not impossible. Would people still be in favor of alienating this one acre of Central Park? Maybe.
Let's say people are still in favor of it. Here's where the principle comes in. We've now agreed to alienate an acre of Central Park. What happens when the next oil prospector, or PV plant operator or wind turbine builder comes along to say they want to try the same thing on another acre? Can you say "no", now that you've already allowed one private enterprise to do it? Did we look ahead when we made the first agreement and wrote it so that it would be the only private use allowed within Central Park and no others could follow? Would such an agreement be defensible if challenged legally? Would the fees paid to NYC by the first private enterprise make it more likely that future proposals would be approved?
You'll have to tell me if this makes any sense. It's the best way I could think of to illustrate why many folks on Long Island are upset that a very bad precedent could be established.
As to the potential environmental impacts, there a number of websites one can go to understand the arguments, pro and con, including FERC to get the DEIS. The idea of the buffer zone becoming a marine sanctuary is one that has occurred to me, too, although not one of sufficient benefit to overwhelmingly trump any bad impacts, IMO. If I haven't already beaten my Central Park analogy to death, let me extend it one more time. Consider how beautiful the grass would grow in that one-acre patch of Central Park because no one would be allowed to walk on it.
I'm sorry, but your arguments leave me unconvinced. I would need a lot more information of the negative impacts. Specifically the defense of a few people on boats versus tens of millions that need new sources of energy supply seems to favor the interests of the vast majority over a priviledged few.
You are not the first person to note that Long Island Sound is already "industrialized" to a degree. As for the issue of the many vs. the few, that is one that weighs on me. That logic can work both ways and do some damage as well as good. The post on Bloomberg's sustainability project had a comment that referenced hydro power projects in Quebec. As I recall, a project was stopped because it would have flooded land occupied by indigenous people of Canada, even though it could have provided clean power for millions. Likewise, it is argued that ANWR could serve millions of people to the detriment of a very small minority of people (as well as some caribou). I'm not ready to concede those sites for the sake of the greater good just yet. I also think the issue of privilege clouds the argument as to whether something is worth preserving. Who has access to it shouldn't get too high of consideration.
Perhaps there's a another poster or a lurker out there who can make a better argument than I did. You will definitely find better arguments on the blog Sphere. I appreciate your posting the Broadwater item in the first place and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.
CD
PS. I should acknowledge that the opposition to Broadwater isn't limited to those who live on LI. There are many folks in CT who are opposing Broadwater with just as much intensity.