Science in the Decision-making of Environmental Controversies
An offshore wind farm remains these days the most efficient and the more easily achievable alternative energy source. It is indisputable that having offshore wind farms is one of the preferred strategies to combat climate change. However, when the Biden administration tried to launch its first of many offshore wind farm projects, heavy opposition flew in from all kinds of stakeholders. The science behind green energy needs no introduction, and nobody can deny that, but why are there still so many controversies surrounding this topic? By diving into the case study with Vineyard Wind 1, we have a chance to see the true nature of science in environmental policy processes. But first, some background knowledge of science is needed.
Science and Environment
Throughout human history, the enlightening power of science has transformed the world into the modern and convenient society that we know today. According to Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology by Kenneth Gould and Tammy Lewis, the convincing power of science comes from its basis on empiricism, meaning that science helps extract knowledge from the observation and the experiences of the world, which lends a logical and objective lens to solve real-world issues. These days, science has become a necessity in anybody’s attempt to cast any change on society. Many have a strong normative expectation that adding science can always improve the quality of complex decision-making.
One should not discount the important position science occupies in environmental studies. In the example of climate change, by observing the empirical evidence from nature, such as the increasing occurrences of extreme weather events, scientists concluded that global warming is happening as we speak. Other than identifying climate change, science has provided momentum for countless environmental movements in the last century, whether it’s helping to uncover the adverse health effects of DDT or helping to recognize certain ecological facts like the negative impacts of damming, a fact that was later used to shed light on conservation management.
However, since the process of establishing scientific knowledge is still “an actual socially situated set of institutions,” many have argued that one should be cautious with the implications of science. Even though our understanding of environmental problems has been greatly enhanced by science, there seems to be an increasing occurrence of environmental controversies.
The logic of science and the comprehensiveness of science inevitably brings out arguments in supplying conflicted logic to dissenting interest groups. Competing scientific disciplinary approaches would present different but equally accurate normative perspectives as guiding principles for environmental controversies. The evidence collected from scientific processes is often deliberately chosen by interest groups in an attempt to further support certain normative frameworks. This is especially troublesome due to the sheer number of interest groups typically involved in any environmental controversy and science being limited in the power of political decision-making. Considering the large-scale impacts science can impose on the environmental policy process, a better understanding of science is needed to create a world that is both equitable and sustainable.
American Offshore Wind Farms
Let’s determine the validity of science in the environmental policy process with a recent example. In the industry of offshore wind, Europe is the indisputable leader with 116 large offshore wind totaling an energy capacity of 25 GW. In comparison to a traditional onshore wind farm, an offshore wind farm erases the public’s concern of lacking aesthetics and noise pollution to a great extent. Moreover, being situated in the ocean, offshore wind farms have access to a steadier supply of wind, enhancing the productivity of wind energy. As a result, environmentalists across the country rejoiced when the Biden administration approved the nation’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, Vineyard Wind 1, in May 2021. When the project eventually runs at full capacity, the green energy generated will be equivalent to removing 325,000 vehicles from roadways.
Most of the construction and operation of Vineyard Wind 1 will be conducted in the coastal city of New Bedford, approximately 40 miles away from the wind farm, and the local community will embrace the emergence of a brand-new industry in their neighborhood. Local resident Billy Vietze, a former employee at a natural gas company, rejoiced when he learned that Vineyard Wind 1 began its construction in 2021. As an indirect culprit of climate for half of his life, Vietze looks forward to serving on the construction team of offshore wind turbines and “repenting his sins.”
With the impacts of climate change increasing every year, the large-scale institution of a steady green energy source brings optimism to the decision-making table. From extensive social research evidence and the undeniable scientific evidence supporting the benefits of green energy, many believe that Vineyard Wind 1 has garnered enough political momentum due to its strong commitment to sustainability. It is prepared to revolutionize the American energy grid. However, opposition and concern regarding Vineyard Wind 1 had swept through both social media platforms and the floor of Congress quickly after the plan was underway.
Science of Green Energy vs. Science of Traditional Energy
Competing scientific disciplinary approaches would present different but equally accurate normative perspectives as guiding principles for environmental controversies. This argument is perfectly illustrated by a classic conflict between environmental conservation and economic development.
For the American public, strong conservative political opposition is an all too familiar response to these types of green energy projects. Conservative senators oppose the development of green energy in the interest of protecting fossil fuel industries. They often hinder the passage of projects or bills because liberal motions, similar to this one, inevitably result in unemployment for families dependent on traditional fossil fuel industries that are inevitably impacted negatively if there are cheap and efficient alternative energy sources in the market. Vineyard Wind 1 is situated in the state of Massachusetts, a state with its 70% energy supply coming from the fossil fuel industry. With the help of economic sciences, opposing voices in Congress have demonstrated that a transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy in Massachusetts would inevitably raise the unemployment rate and deter local economic growth.
In addition, David Stevenson, the former Trump adviser, has also raised an argument against the wind farm, stating that the project won't resolve any short-term and long-term costs for the consumers, such as the raised electricity bill. Even though the scientific justification behind the construction of offshore wind farms — the commitment to mitigate climate change — is well-founded, opposing interest groups can always propose competing scientific evidence (unstable economic growth is always a valid concern) to support their dissents. As a result, science as an institution is limited in its power for evaluation. A conflicted situation like this forces decision-makers to consider science conservatively as the supplier of background knowledge and rely on other institutions to make a final decision.
Science of Green Energy vs. Science of Environmental Groups
Most of the time, the conundrum of coming up with a feasible and equitable political resolution is not due to a lack of scientific understanding but due to a lack of coherence among different scientific understandings propelled by different cultural and institutional contexts. This is partially what is going on at Vineyard Wind 1.
The opposition to Vineyard Wind 1 was multifaceted, and the most baffling part of this political debate was the opposition joined by many liberal environmental groups as well, including some giant industries such as Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC seldom expresses opinions on renewable energy projects, but with Vineyard Wind 1, they have questioned the project’s inadequacy in environmental planning and voiced their concerns regarding the protection of valuable marine species. Lawyers from NRDC stated: “strong protective measures are required to protect critically endangered North Atlantic right whales and other marine wildlife during offshore wind survey activities.” Although managers at NRDC appreciate the efforts of constructing offshore wind farms, their dissenting opinion brought up an equally valid scientific argument stating that protecting biodiversity is also an integral part of combating climate change. It is ironic that a green organization would be at the forefront of discounting efforts to promote green energy.
A further discussion of the nature of science and the limitation of science as an institution can help to understand this radical outcome. In the previous case, science is ineffective to abridge the differences between distinctive frameworks, especially between economy and environment, when the success of one framework requires the tradeoff of another. With the case of Vineyard Wind 1, in which one witness conflicts among green initiatives themselves, it is unfortunate that sometimes science cannot abridge the dissenting opinions under the same framework (environmental preservation in this case) either.
These differences cannot be attributed to the lack of scientific understanding. Alternatively, they are induced by “the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings” and are easily resolvable if different stakeholders engage in active conversations. Even though the original plan to construct Vineyard Wind 1 did not include the precautionary measures targeted at migratory whales, the scientific evidence raised by NRDC has been considered, and multiple preventative strategies, including an advanced wildlife monitoring system and a speed limit set in the construction site, had been carefully adopted by Vineyard Wind 1.
Science of Green Energy vs. Science of Local Fishery
At the end of the day, scientific knowledge is still a socially situated set of institutions. In other words, science is merely a tool, and the efficacy of the tool still depends on the people wielding it. Even though the public was largely excited about the prospects of offshore wind farms, commercial fishermen felt that their livelihoods were unevenly impacted.
Although the project got approved in May 2021, the fisherman in New Bedford felt that their concerns were continuously ignored. The establishment of offshore wind farms essentially closes any access to navigation in that area. Not only would trawling around wind turbines be dangerous or even impossible, but also the increase in water temperature from turbine operation can permanently change the wildlife composition in the area. In addition, fishermen would be forced to fish in a smaller area which would lead to a decrease in productivity and ultimately the depletion of the fish population due to overfishing.
In theory, one would imagine that an industry valued at $5.5 billion in 2019 would be a significant interest group for environmental impact analysis, but in reality, Vineyard Wind 1 merely made certain that “in theory,” the wind farm would only cause “minimal impact” on the local fishery. After learning about the decision, the local fishermen community was furious because their derived knowledge from generations of experiences as well as their professional knowledge in fishery and ecology tell them their livelihood would be deeply impacted. In this example, the scientific knowledge possessed by fishermen was ignored not due to invalidation but because of the fishermen’s lack of political influence and the financial capability for a prolonged debate in the courtroom. It’s unfortunate to see that sometimes, even with the help of effective communication, science cannot reconcile the conundrum between the local ways of life and bigger-picture issues such as the Biden administration’s commitment to sustainability.
How to resolve environmental controversy?
These confusions and inefficiency generated by science are not entirely irreconcilable, and there are some instances within the Vineyard Wind 1 case study where resolutions were underway and have helped to reduce political controversies.
- Structural Improvement:
In the Vineyard Wind 1 case, the political pushbacks raised fearing economic recession caused by a substitution of fossil energy are quickly put down. The conservative argument on regional economic development with Vineyard Wind 1 is disqualified because the Biden administration has collaborated with the local workers union and made certain that this newly developed industry would guarantee plentiful job opportunities for households whose livelihoods used to depend on industries of resource extractions.
At the current stage, 1,000 construction jobs were distributed to labor union workers who previously worked for fossil fuel industries with more job opportunities along the way when the wind farm operates at full capacity. Training was also provided to ensure a smooth transition for these workers. In addition, there were efforts to create a more diverse workforce as well, with 20 percent of the construction job reserved for people of color, making certain that Vineyard Wind 1 is a completely equitable renewable energy project.
2. Institutional Support:
Heeding the concerns raised by environmental groups regarding the protection of endangered species, Vineyard Wind 1 has submitted several versions of the environmental impact statement and maintained the integrity of the Northern Atlantic right whale population. This added argument successfully demonstrates how other institutions, such as legal institutions, can impartially resolve the complexity of environmental controversy caused by the nature of science.
Legal institutions speak over science with a judicial subordination and posit scientists as the underlaborers of laws. Statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, which are thoroughly evaluated, can help deliver the most optimal outcome with environmental controversies entrenched with scientific disputes. With the combination of other institutions, science can be decoupled from the decision-making process and focus on information gathering. Fishermen communities managed to reach some initial successes when their case was represented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who successfully argued that the environmental impact studies of Vineyard Wind 1 were not thorough since they did not consider the economic impacts on local fishery.
At the end of the day, this political controversy still exists for there is always contention on how a law should be formulated and executed, and laws like NEPA can only be practiced at the federal level and do not hold efficacy over disputes at lower social levels. The hybridization of science and other institutions can ideally limit the occurrences of unnecessary disputes.
3. Grassroot campaigns:
Despite how unfortunate this is, it is a hard fact that the science which represents the interests and rights of disadvantaged or minority groups is still being neglected. Fishermen in Cape Cod have spent hundreds of hours in court making testimonies based on the science of fishery management to federal agencies and expressing how they believed Vineyard Wind 1 is going to create a larger impact than any environmental impact statement has asserted to the local fishery. However, most of these petitions were met with silence from the federal agency.
Though it seems unfair, interest groups occupying a higher social class, such as the government or regional businesses, always have privileged access over the use of scientific knowledge. For stakeholders that are less politically or financially influential, what science cannot communicate on paper is often complemented by environmental movements in the form of educational campaigns or protests. With the Vineyard Wind 1 case, protests began outside the Massachusetts State House as a radical way of communicating the ignored interest groups impacted by the offshore wind farm. For the disadvantaged stakeholders, fishermen, in this case, they hope that through environmental social movements, enough momentum can be propelled through the people and the media, eventually resulting in social change.
Future Outlook
Though institutional hybridity appears to be the comprehensive solution to the equitable decision-making that science is unable to achieve, this does not render science completely useless. Especially with commercial fisheries, science perhaps remains the best tool to fit intensive fisheries into the equation of sustainable energy. Stemming from science is the chance to acquire better technology for wind turbines that do not disrupt fisheries or fishing gears that are more efficient in maintaining fishing yield.
At the time this article is finished, the first stage of Vineyard Wind 1 is already starting to supply green energy to households on the east coast. The project ensures its harmonious relationship with the natural environment and supplies a new industry in New Bedford. Though the fishermen are still voicing their discontents, many are confident that the conflict will reach its end with the support of indisputable science and the powers of social movements.
Today, science has helped us identify the most concerning issues and guided policies that can fruit optimal outcomes. The lack of communication and cohesiveness among different facets of sciences as well as the inadequate representation of all populations both contribute to political controversy induced by science. The day that these downfalls are properly managed would be one of the major advancements in the paradigm of the environmental policy process. Although it is disheartening that science is used to politicize and hinder projects that are necessary to help us become greener, for now, science remains the most impactful institution that leads our way to sustainability.
By: Leo Rui
