When evaluating public debates, I find it helpful to determine whether arguments are made in good faith or serve as a disguise for less respectable motivations. This assessment has been particularly useful in the offshore wind debate.
Opponents claim to be guided by deep principles, yet I rarely see them apply those principles consistently.
For instance, the Caesar Rodney Institute argues that the US Wind project will harm wildlife and clutter beach views, while simultaneously advocating for oil drilling in the same waters. Where do its true loyalties lie?
Sussex County Council members also express environmental concern, but their unblinking approval of sprawling housing developments — which contribute to deforestation and pollution flowing into our bays and oceans — raises questions about their sincerity.
Critics of wind projects argue that they kill birds and whales, yet these individuals seem silent about the dangers posed by outdoor pets (the leading threat to wild birds) and global warming, which affects whale food sources. How legitimate can their worries be?
And I have never heard these so-called “environmentalists” criticize Delaware Bay dredging — which damages marine habitats and releases toxins — to facilitate oil tankers’ access to refineries.
Despite its imperfections, offshore wind presents a significantly better option for human and environmental health than do many harmful activities its opponents overlook or endorse.
So, what truly fuels the opposition to offshore wind? Readers can draw their own conclusions based on the contradictions above.
Greg Layton
Willow Grove
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
