Cash Landing

For some people, windmills will never be beautiful. For others, their beauty is inexorably linked to the environmental benefits they provide. But for the vast majority of people, they are an unknown, and the more we can get projects in the ground, the greater opportunity there will be to educate. Also, the more we can link windmills to local benefits, the more beautiful they will be. It's funny how a municipal windmill in Hull, Mass., is a lot more beautiful to local taxpayers who save on their tax bills than to their neighbors in the next town who receive no tax benefits.

Sure. Aesthetics is one of many valid criteria that need to be taken into account when deciding on wind-turbine sites. I wouldn't want to see windmills lining the rim of the Grand Canyon, for example. Siting wind projects will always involve trade-offs between the benefits of clean, renewable energy and aesthetic, wildlife, and other ecological values. What many states and local communities are facing is trying to figure out how to make that calculus. The technology is still new enough that there aren't a lot of models out there on how to do it right. We are in the process of developing state guidance to help communities, developers, and other interests in identifying the critical criteria to address and how trade-offs can be made.

I don't know, and I don't think it's the place of state government to make that decision. It is the role of state government, though, to provide clear guidance and clear regulations and rules that will help developers and communities make those choices. At the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, we are in the midst of coordinating an interagency effort to develop that kind of guidance, and we've just finished a series of regional working groups of interested stakeholders to get input.

Addressing transportation-related pollution poses the biggest challenge. First, systemic changes are required in transportation planning and institutions such as the federal Department of Transportation and state transportation agencies that have not historically prioritized air quality or smart growth as central goals. It is rare that transportation agencies work closely with environmental, housing, or economic-development agencies, though the idea of the importance of this integration is taking hold. Massachusetts just completed a draft transportation plan that takes a large step in this direction, partly because Gov. Mitt Romney has created a supra-agency (the Office of Commonwealth Development) that coordinates activities in the environment, housing, transportation, and energy agencies.

I would have been interested in a federal position, and I explored opportunities at EPA's regional office. (At this stage in my life, I wanted to stay in the Boston area; it's where I am surrounded by lots of family -- a high priority for my wife and me, especially with two young kids.) In terms of pros and cons, at this point, a lot of creative policy making and innovation is happening at the state level, so it's an exciting place to be. Also, I had spent the previous 10 years researching and applying my work at the international and national levels. I was ready to do work that addressed issues of sustainability closer to home.

Yes, this is a high-priority issue that we are addressing through a variety of channels. We are expanding public transit (and in general, following smart-growth principles) in these communities that will reduce the car traffic on major arteries that pass through the region. We are replacing high-emitting, old diesel buses (one of the worst sources of the particulate pollution that results in the respiratory problems you mention) with alternative-fuel buses (compressed natural gas) or new, cleaner diesel buses. We are also beginning programs that help communities retrofit school buses and municipal fleets with technologies that reduce emissions. And finally, low emissions standards are being implemented for all cars. I have never heard of any relocation assistance programs to address this problem.

I think the movement needs to more actively engage at different levels. I don't see how you can succeed at local-level politics without engaging the state or other levels. People in local communities are faced with constraints or opportunities that come from other levels, and if those aren't acknowledged and addressed, it's going to be difficult to move forward. Find the levers of change and be very strategic about devoting resources to pushing those levers. Are those levers in the local city council, the regional planning board, the metropolitan planning organization, on a specific committee of the state legislature, in a state agency, through legal channels, at the federal level? If a local environmental movement does not do its homework and plan strategically, it risks expending a lot of energy with little result -- a sure way to keep others from seeing the benefit of being involved.