by : lacylit10 Politics

With Wind Energy and Endangered Species…

…the Greater Good Sure Is Subjective

By its scheduled completion in December, the Strauss Wind Energy Project near Lompoc is expected to produce enough electricity to power 45,000 houses.

Considering Santa Barbara County set the ambitious goal of reaching 100% renewable electricity by 2030, this project will be substantially helpful in attaining that goal.

Except the wind energy being produced will not stay in Santa Barbara County. The electricity will be exported to the San Francisco Bay Area.

In March, Strauss Wind Energy and BayWa r.e. filed for a federal take permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for any incidental deaths of golden eagles and other endangered species.

Since these permits can take years to secure, Strauss and BayWa requested permission from the county Planning Commission to begin operation without the permit.

Originally, county staff recommended the commissioners deny the request, but the commissioners recommended staff return with findings to approve it.

The decision was ultimately approved, as three of our local planning commissioners believe that immediately profiting by powering the Bay Area is more important than waiting the lengthy time frame for legally obtaining permission to kill endangered species.

It is for the “greater good,” they said. 

The greater good is such an interesting argument to me, because it is not based on logic. It is based on what you believe to be more important.

The greater good is subjective based on what you personally believe should take priority.

As taxpayers, we must decide what is more important to us:

  • Support the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to begin operation without the federal take permit, and accept that the county can be held liable (fined) for any endangered species deaths.
  • Oppose the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to operate without the federal take permit and accept that the county will not see immediate profits from exporting the electricity to the Bay Area.

The county is absolutely rigid in compliance enforcement when an individual or private company wants to do a project, and the county has no problem making the permit process as painful as possible while it drains local pocketbooks with associated fees.

In this situation, however, the county is willing to turn a blind eye to federal compliance for the wind farm, so it can generate profits off of exporting the electricity of a multibillion-dollar company.

Seemingly, laws and regulations are only relevant to enforce when the county believes it won’t make substantial money.

Choosing to make an exception for a project where it will largely profit sets a dangerous precedent. I can almost guarantee the county will not make an exception for your project when it does not generate that kind of revenue.

So who, exactly, do the Santa Barbara County planning commissioners consider the “greater good” in this situation? The county itself, local constituents, or residents of the Bay Area?

I actually do believe that sometimes rules need to be bent or broken for the greater good, if you are willing to suffer the consequences.

But I am not willing to accept the consequences of county decision makers who put profits over people (and the lives of endangered animals).

If the county is not willing to make compliance exceptions for local businesses when they will not see a multimillion-dollar profit, then it should not make the exception for a multinational corporation where it will.

I understand the taxes generated from the project will be significant. But the county will probably use those profits to hire more staff in the climate department to create more regulations requiring locals to replace their own nonrenewable energy sources, creating a slow, inconvenient and costly process as we carry the financial burden of chipping away at the county’s unrealistic climate goals.

If the planning commissioners were truly concerned with the greater good of our community, they would keep the wind-generated electricity within our county to help them reach their own ambitious climate goals.

And if the county was truly concerned with the greater good, it would adhere to the laws it enforces for others. 

Originally posted on Noozhawk.

by : lacylit10 Leadership, Life Lessons

Self and Tolerance.

The problem with becoming self-aware is that you begin to notice all the wrongs. What I mean is that your triggers seem to increase as you recognize how traits and behaviors of others impact you. Even more, you begin to realize that you have unknowingly accepted a level of treatment that you now know is unhealthy for you.

As a leader, we are sometimes required to tolerate things that we wouldn’t normally tolerate. Whether it be in your home life or your work life, there is undoubtedly someone that you accept poor treatment from because you have to. And I say “have to” because it may not be immediately feasible for you to leave the relationship (e.g., financial limitations of quitting a job or familial repercussions of defriending a sibling). When we feel this strain in a relationship, how do we know when we are stretching our leadership muscles versus sacrificing self?

Discomfort occurs either way.

Does it come down to severity of discomfort (e.g., some is stretching, a lot is sacrifice)? Or does sacrifice equate to snapping from stretching too much?

We can’t just up and leave a relationship every time it gets hard. Relationships take work, no matter the type. We have to be flexible with one another for the relationship to adapt to individual growth, and effort put forth should be balanced and symbiotic in order for the relationship to be sustainable.

So does sacrifice result from a one-sided or inequal commitment?

I don’t know that there is an easy answer or an answer at all. Maybe it all comes down to tolerability. What may be stretching in a relationship to one might be sacrificing to another. One person might put in a month’s worth of effort and call it good; others might put years into making the relationship work. It also comes down to importance of the relationship. If it is a spouse or loved one, then we will likely give it more time and effort than if it is a colleague or employee.

In any instance, tolerating unhealthy treatment is, well, unhealthy. That is why so many experts in leadership stress the importance of self-care. The better you care for yourself the more you can tolerate others!

Unfortunately, many of us do not give ourselves the care we truly need. And it’s hard to explain your needs to people who do not understand or empathize with the toll being a leader can have on oneself. Just as tolerance varies per person, so does quality and quantity of self-care. As we increasingly recognize the traits and behaviors of others and their impacts on us, we need to hone awareness of our own needs and care for ourselves as we care for others – if not more.

Leadership is a gift that often goes unrecognized and unappreciated. Don’t make it harder on yourself by ignoring your self.