There have been two broad strands of thinking on how to deal with the pressing challenge of environmental destruction and greenhouse emissions. Environmentalists and conservationists usually propose an absolute reduction in consumption and economic activity for combating greenhouse emissions and reducing the ecological footprint. They point to the carrying capacity of the earth, and the widespread destruction of habitat and biological diversity.

In marked contrast, anxious to avoid short-term economic pain and decline in economic growth, national governments and policymakers have in general promoted new technologies in place of the existing ones. They do not, in general, attempt at reducing energy usage or consumption levels per se. Thus, much of the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions planned by both developing and developed countries as part of their national goals is designed around decreased intensity of emissions and increased reliance on cleaner forms of energy. Renewable energies in the form of solar, wind and electric mobility play a big part of this strategy.

Challenges galore

Yet, since renewable projects come up on new sites and do not replace the existing coal power plants, they come with challenges of their own. Wind energy, for instance, is considered a clean energy. There is something inherently appealing in the idea of generating power from an abundant and non-perishable resource. Yet, wind turbines require clearing of land, construction of access roads to the site, and flattening of hilltops where the turbines are usually placed. Furthermore, pylons and cables are required to connect the turbines to the grid. Then, there is the question of the spoiling of natural beauty; wind turbines are not a pretty sight.

Thus, while governments and many environmentalists promote wind energy, local communities and groups from around the world—the United States, the United Kingdom, France and India—have objected at various times to the placement of wind farms in their neighbourhoods. In fact, there are hundreds of well-established grassroots groups opposing wind farm development in many Western countries.

In the UK, where there has been a traditional divide between those promoting and those opposing wind energy, residents worried about the aesthetic effect of windmills on their landscape as well as the effects on their health and wildlife (wind turbines kill birds and disrupt their flight paths). In France, earlier this year, fishing communities in Normandy halted work at an offshore wind turbine project fearing loss of access to fishing areas. Likewise, villagers in the Indian region of Kutch have put up a spirited defence for years against the setting up of a wind farm project by multinationals on the forest lands they hold sacred and depend on for their livelihood.

The issue at core is that while the benefits associated with wind farms are well-known, there is no proper appraisal of their effects on the well-being of local communities and environment. Perhaps, the conflict between purported benefits and the local ecology and communities is nowhere best exemplified than the Tesla electric car project planned near Berlin. Announced by CEO Elon Musk in 2019, the Giga Tesla project was in the offing for many years and several European countries had hoped to attract Tesla with generous subsidies and exemptions. However, till date, production has not taken off and the project has fallen behind schedule.

Apart from the delays of local planning authorities, it is the concerns raised by the local environmental groups that have stymied the project. Media reports of the project at Grünheide in the vicinity of Berlin show construction taking place in what appears to be a large wooded area and, in fact, borders a natural reserve. Covering hundreds of acres of woodlands, thousands of trees have already been felled to make way for the factory premises. As the site expands further to house employee accommodation and other amenities, even more woods would have to be cleared.

Tesla is legally obligated to plant as many trees as they have destroyed but, as experience worldwide shows, it is one thing to destroy an established forest, and quite another to show that an equal number of trees have been planted elsewhere. As with any large-scale manufacturing, the factory will also draw large amounts of groundwater. When fully operational, the Giga factory is estimated to use groundwater and produce wastewater comparable to the size of a small town of 70,000 people.

All of this drew the attention of the local environmental groups who considered the project as being in total disregard for the local ecology. They worried that their drinking water supplies would get affected and questioned the wisdom of removing thousands of trees which were home to several animal species. Though the conservation groups were able to halt work at the site several times, their concerns were finally dismissed by the German courts allowing Tesla to clear the forest and continue building its factory. In a few years’ time, Tesla will roll out up to half a million electric cars and millions of batteries from the plant every year.

Electric cars, of which Tesla and Musk have become emblematic, reduce greenhouse emissions, do not pollute, and most importantly, do not involve compromises in comfort and convenience, unlike public transportation. Thus, governments worldwide have set up subsidies to boost their adoption. Tesla is itself counting to receive hundreds of millions of euros in German government subsidies over the next few years. Seeing a change in consumer preference, most of the major automobile manufacturers have plans to convert their entire range to electric over the next few decades.

How much energy

Yet, as the examples of the wind farms show, what can be good for the environment on a global level, could prove to be detrimental to local ecology and communities. To ensure continuing support for green technologies, policymakers and green energy companies have to look at the local realities and human side of things too, apart from the technical parameters.

Substituting green technologies for carbon-based fuels is a relatively easy alternative that does not place too many demands on the way people, especially in the developed world, currently live. Ultimately at some point in future, policymakers will have to address the more difficult question of just how much energy is required to lead an acceptable standard of living, and what is the price they are willing to pay for it. They will have to address questions such as whether comforts such as central heating or personal cars are worth the price paid for in clearing new areas for developing green energy sources.