Transcript: Clean Energy Companies vs. Traditional Environmentalists
CLARICE: Good morning, everybody. And welcome to this week’s episode of Environmentally Speaking.
MARISA: Hi, everyone. I’m Marisa Desautel, an environmental attorney in Rhode Island.
CLARICE: And I’m Clarice, coming in with questions, topics. And this week we are talking about two different topics which are pretty — I’d say they’re related.
MARISA: I agree.
CLARICE: We’re talking about this heat wave that we’re in, or as everybody that I’m talking to is calling it, the humidity wave.
MARISA: Oh, really?
CLARICE: Yes. It’s so funny. I think everybody that I’ve spoken to recently says, oh, it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity.
MARISA: In this region, yeah, I suppose so. I was with some people yesterday that in the middle of the conversation declared that Wednesday of this week was the hottest day of the — excuse me — the hottest day in history.
CLARICE: Oh.
MARISA: Yeah. For the country.
CLARICE: And Wednesday felt really unremarkable to me.
MARISA: Yeah. Luckily, I think the northeast region is not suffering with the same heat wave that states like Arizona and Texas are dealing with.
CLARICE: Yeah. So the other piece that we’re also talking about is connected to that heat in terms of how the environmental — movement doesn’t feel like the right word but how environmentalists are reacting to this climate change and their conversations within environmentalists. So, Marisa, you found two really awesome articles. How do you want to kick it off?
MARISA: Well, let me say that the first article comes from the Los Angeles Times and deals with why the, quote, unquote, climate movement in the United States is polarized. And hopefully you can drop the article into the show notes as you usually do. Thank you very much. It’s nice on a professional level for me to read stories like this because I have these thoughts all day every day and it’s good that other conversations are happening outside of what’s in my head between people that, first of all, know what they’re talking about because they’ve been immersed in the industry for their careers and that it’s also being distributed in a media that lots of people can access. So that’s a positive for me.
[0:03:05] CLARICE: Uh-huh.
MARISA: I like that people are talking about this. So what am I referencing here. There is, according to this article — and I agree — competing visions of the future in terms of clean energy companies and traditional environmentalists. I would categorize myself as a traditional environmentalist and this article explains pretty much my perspective on what’s happening with the renewable energy market and what our federal government is doing to further its interests in decarbonizing the country. The story that is in the Los Angeles Times was initially published in a newsletter called Boiling Point and it is styled as a conversation between the journalist and an energy historian. I didn’t know there was such a profession, but apparently there is.
CLARICE: I’m happy you brought that up. I had the same thought.
MARISA: The energy historian’s name is Josh Lappen and he is currently completing his doctorate at the University of Oxford, smart guy. Highly recommend reading the article. It’s an easy read. He breaks down the issues between renewable energy companies which historically have been frowned upon because the industrialization of this country was spearheaded by corporate interests. And Americans have a major problem with natural resources being destroyed for the sake of companies making money. The renewable energy industry is no different than the industries that are responsibility for the industrialization of this country.
So with that as the backdrop, josh Lappen goes on to say that traditional environmentalists are at odds with the renewable energy movement because there is already a framework of federal and state law and policy that environmentalists are saying, why aren’t we relying on what we’ve built to get this country off of fossil fuels. Instead, we’ve got to push by renewable energy companies under the federal direction building solar and wind projects at an alarming rate instead of trying to foster energy efficiency and, again, getting off of fossil fuel reliance, so.
[0:06:31] CLARICE: Which we talked about a couple weeks ago. It’s that idea of, oh, no, we’re coming up to this panic point. What can we do. How quickly can be do it. What regulations or safeties can we wave to get this through. It’s almost like it’s at the point of like — it’s the oh, shit point.
MARISA: Yeah.
CLARICE: What things can we waive to get this through and in that what are we missing? What are we forgetting? I mean, how many times in our daily life are we rushing out the door or panicking because something is coming up and that’s when we drop our keys, forget to turn off the light, do small things like that. Now imagine that on a larger scale panic. This is not the time for us to be bulldozing. This is when we could be making more mistakes. It’s more than just leaving the light or dropping, you know, your coffee tumbler, so.
MARISA: Yeah. We are hurdling, in my opinion, towards disaster by moving forward with things like offshore wind at an astoundingly fast pace. Having worked in government, I understand how slowly things move and to see these offshore wind projects being sited, approved, constructed in a year or two years, it’s shocking. It’s negligent. It’s irresponsible. As a traditional environmentalist I am diametrically opposed to renewable energy industry and this article does a nice job, I think, of explaining that.
CLARICE: Yeah. Yeah. I really liked his breakdown. One thing that I really enjoyed — and like you said, it is written in that conversational style and a lot of the interviewer’s questions were really — I found really approachable and really kind of got to that point of explain this — I guess the word I’m going to use here is riff. Explain this riff. What does it mean? What are both sides saying? Where do we go from here? And it was just very foundational questions that I think brought this issue to light in a very approachable way.
And if I could kind of highlight one question and answer that stood out to me and I really liked was it seems like a lot of the debate over permitting reform resolves around whether you think letting renewable energy and fossil fuels duke it out in the marketplace will lead to fossil fuel production falling quickly and his answer was right. The reason permitting reform has become so controversial is because it doubles down on the Inflation Reduction Act theory of decarbonization. And he takes the time to go in — and it’s a longer answer, but he then takes the time to really sit and explain both sides and explain this market answer and I just find that it’s hard to find somebody who sits and goes, okay, here’s one side, here’s the other side, let’s talk about it, it looks like, in this approachable way. So I appreciated you finding this piece.
[0:10:05] MARISA: There is a question and answer that I was going to quote, as well, for a completely different reason than what you just said. There’s one question in this article that summarizes everything that I kind of care about and the answer is so disappointing because — well, let me read it and then you can see, hopefully.
CLARICE: Yeah. Go for it.
MARISA: All right. So here’s the question; quote, for me this brings the conversation back to solar and wind energy development on public lands which President Biden has made a top priority. I think some environmentalists are critical of the president’s strategy, not just because they’d prefer to see him clamp down on fossil fuel extraction but also because they’re deeply skeptical of climate solutions that are based on large energy companies making money, chewing up lands that belong to all of us, end quote. And the response from Josh is, totally. Oh, man. I was reading the question and I was like, yes, this is it.
CLARICE: Yeah.
MARISA: I can’t wait to see what Josh has to say and he’s going to expound and yes. And I was disappointed. I’d hoped for more of a response. I mean, he’s not wrong.
CLARICE: Yeah.
MARISA: But I need more. I needed more.
CLARICE: We needed some more. It was a passionate question. We wanted a more passionate answer.
MARISA: Yeah. Yeah. Agree. Go ahead.
CLARICE: I was going to say this segues nicely into that second article that you found.
MARISA: That’s what I was going to say. That’s great. What’s the second article?
CLARICE: So you found another piece about Biden announces new measures to protect Americans from extreme heat and this was a piece from The Guardian focusing on Biden wanting to make a priority for kind of making this — like we were talking about at the beginning, this heat wave, this climate change. Obviously things are getting warmer, as we all know, really focusing on, I guess, protecting us and, you know, being safe in the heat and what things are going to be done to help Americans in the heat.
MARISA: What are some of the measures?
CLARICE: I was just about to say disappointment.
MARISA: Just contentment, yes.
[0:12:55] CLARICE: One thing that stuck out to me was he was going to call out people who weren’t allowing water breaks. There was one piece that I thought was really interesting. Let me see. Biden was quoted as saying, we should be protecting workers from hazardous conditions and we will. And those states where they do not, I’m going to be calling them out. He later added when he played football as a young man the coaches would be fired for refusing players water breaks.
MARISA: Doesn’t that seem absurd on so many different levels?
CLARICE: One hundred percent. Now, in no way am I saying people should not be allowed to have water breaks.
MARISA: No. Of course they should. That’s what I mean.
CLARICE: Everybody should have a water break.
MARISA: It’s so absurd. It’s 114 degrees.
CLARICE: Everybody needs to go have a water break, but this just didn’t feel like a tangible — this just didn’t feel like something that needed to be said. Like this wasn’t an actionable item.
MARISA: Yeah. Well, apparently there’s some assholes out there that don’t want their workers having water breaks when it’s 114 degrees outside. Like what? Is that actually happening?
CLARICE: I hate it. God, I hope not.
MARISA: And, also, why do we have to listen to President Biden expounding on his experiences as a football player? Who cares?
CLARICE: I don’t know. The other thing that I was also disappointed at was this proposal to plant more trees which, I know, once again, it’s shocking to hear that some people who are pro-environment are saying, not in this way. But the idea of planting more trees then led me to several additional questions.
MARISA: Okay.
CLARICE: If we are frequently seeing places like California where it is consistently hotter needing this shade and they’re constantly having droughts and we’re going to be planting more trees there, how are we going to water them if they’re going to be in a drought? If we’re seeing places like Arizona or New Mexico, places that are experiencing this heat in ways that are unprecedented for that area and are naturally hotter than the rest of the country suggesting that they get more shaded trees, how are we watering them?
MARISA: I love when you get fired up. It brings me joy.
CLARICE: It just didn’t make sense to me. And it’s also this idea of like water is, again, a finite resource and these places are hotter and these places are already putting restrictions. There’s already these beautiful movements. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, Marisa, but places in Arizona and New Mexico are moving away from having lawns and instead are doing natural landscapings where they’re doing cacti. They’re doing sort of like rock gardens in the front —
MARISA: Yeah. Yeah.
CLARICE: — to conserve water but still maintain a beautiful front of your home. So these people are accepting and understanding we don’t have a ton of water. Let’s adjust and kind of work within the environment that we’re in.
[0:16:07] MARISA: Well, think about all the water that’s going to be saved by not allowing workers to stop working and have a water break. So there’s that.
CLARICE: Great. We can water those trees. I didn’t understand it.
MARISA: Yeah. No. I’m pretty sure that Biden also — or the federal legislature also earmarked a couple of billion dollars to allow for a pipeline that will bring water to areas that are experiencing drought. That’s not going to happen overnight, of course, but I like the idea of trees being planted because it lowers temperatures in cities. I had a different reaction to that particular portion of this article. I read about the trees being planted and I thought, God, I just — I get so frustrated with people. Why are we cutting trees down to begin with? Why are we paving everything?
I was driving to work this week and there’s some road construction going on with a local electrical company and, you know, obviously they have a police detail there. And then in the midst of all of that, there’s a tree company on the side of the road with a guy in a bucket and a giant chainsaw hacking off branches of a tree. I assume because — actually, I don’t know why. Because they think it’s going to fall on a car or something. But what is that?
CLARICE: I don’t know.
MARISA: You’ve just got some guy with a chainsaw hacking at a tree? I don’t know.
CLARICE: I’m hoping there’s —
MARISA: I must be crazy. I must be crazy because I think I’m the only one that thinks this way. The tree is fine. Leave the tree. It’s a tree. It knows how to be a tree. You don’t need to cut it or take it down. It’s a tree.
CLARICE: Spitballing here.
MARISA: Oh, boy.
CLARICE: I know. We’re going to go way off topic, folks.
MARISA: Okay.
CLARICE: What about places like Singapore where they’ve integrated green spaces into their cities really beautifully and made that such a serious focus of their urban design?
[0:19:02] MARISA: I am not familiar with this. I’ll have to Google it.
CLARICE: There are so many rooftop gardens. There are so many designated green spaces. They’re inside. They’re outside. I mean, not everywhere in the country can have open, you know, building centers, but there is such a serious focus on incorporating greenery into their cities and I’m just not seeing that care.
MARISA: Yeah. We’re busy cutting things down.
CLARICE: And now I’m seeing us going back and saying, we got to go back and plant the trees and how we’re going to water them. Great. I don’t have answers. Folks, we will link both of these articles in the show notes. One of them was a really interesting read. One of them left me with lots of questions. We would love to hear your thoughts, please. We would love to hear any thoughts. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
MARISA: Is anyone thinking anything?
CLARICE: You can catch us on the socials. We are on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter. You can watch our videos on YouTube. We are at Desautel Law. You can email us at info@DesautelBrowning.com. Let us know. What are your thoughts about planting more trees? Of course we want water breaks. We want to make sure that water makes it to people. I just found that section in the article. It is a $152 million pipeline.
MARISA: Yeah.
CLARICE: I mean, either way lots of money —
MARISA: Yeah.
CLARICE: — to make sure that water makes it to the trees.
MARISA: Thanks, everybody.
CLARICE: Have a good one.
MARISA: Bye.
