Green politics in SF get in the way of rational policy.
We recently criticized the head of the EPA for ignoring his staff’s analysis that greenhouse gases affect California and therefore should be regulated by the state. However, failure of public leadership vis-a-vis the environment is not limited only to cases where the government opposes a green policy. In the case of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, it appears that public leadership in this case is disregarding scientific analysis and pursuing a green project in spite of the evidence against its effectiveness.
The issue revolves around a proposal to place turbines under the Golden Gate Bridge in order to generate electricity from the strong tides. The original proposal estimated that 38 megawatts of energy would be produced, enough to power 38,000 homes. However, a recently completed study asserted that only 1 or 2 megawatts of power would be generated, and that each kilowatt hour would cost between 80 cents and $1.40 (the average rate in the region is 12 cents per kilowatt hour).
In response to the study and resulting criticism, the mayor stated: “I am going to find a way to make it happen. I’m committed to it and am going to fight for it. I don’t care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it.”
It seems to us that this is an example of a public official taking a similar approach to scientific analysis as the head of the EPA in the California emissions case. The only difference is that one leader is ignoring data in opposition to a green policy and the other is ignoring data in favor of a “green” policy. (The quotes around “green” are because we’re not so sure a proposed power plant that appears to be so inefficient and expensive can fairly be classified as “green.”)
Comments
Please contribute to the discussion. No need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
-
Private Leaders
