Earlier this summer, my children were enjoying the remarkably warm ocean waves in the picturesque Victorian seaside town of Cape May, New Jersey, while angry protesters gathered a few towns away. Over the past few months, hundreds of residents of the Jersey Shore have organized demonstrations to oppose Ocean Wind 1, an offshore wind farm being developed by a subsidiary of Orsted, the Danish company. Located 13 nautical miles southeast of Atlantic City, this installation consists of 98 turbines and has the capacity to power nearly 500,000 homes. It represents a significant step towards reducing New Jersey’s dependency on fossil fuels, which not only pollute our air but also endanger our shoreline.
Some have likened these anti-wind protesters to the Cape Cod residents who fought to preserve the view from their multi-million-dollar homes. However, I believe there is more at play here. The transition away from fossil fuels in America is happening rapidly, transforming the landscapes around us. Wind turbines, solar panels, and other clean energy infrastructure are being built right before our eyes, and in some cases, in our own communities. It is a substantial amount of change, and yet it is only a fraction of what is necessary. This comprehensive transformation, while undeniably beneficial, can be disorienting for many.
Oil and gas companies, who have a significant stake in the matter, have effectively exploited this disorienting feeling. Groups like Protect Our Coast NJ, which has filed lawsuits to impede the progress of Ocean Wind 1, have received support from the Caesar Rodney Institute, a think tank with ties to fossil fuel interests. Other groups opposing wind projects claim to be protecting whales, but they are financially backed by oil interests. It is important to note that there is no concrete evidence linking whale deaths to wind farms. Meanwhile, the industry’s own advertisements have shifted their focus from products to nostalgia, evoking images of simpler times: small business owners wading through corn fields, women cooking for their families, and gas-powered cars freely speeding through untouched wilderness. It is ironic that these advertisements promise a return to a less perplexing past, considering that the industry itself plays a significant role in creating the terrifying future we face.
A considerable factor contributing to the pushback against greener energy sources is our own anxieties. This resistance is not unique to New Jersey; it can be observed from Illinois to New England, where fishermen, business owners, and residents are threatening legal action against proposed wind farms. In some cases, fossil fuel money is attempting to influence the debate. However, as environmentalists, we also share some responsibility. We have not always been successful in considering the experiences of those undergoing these changes, nor have we fully embraced the importance of engaging and involving them in the decision-making process. The escalating wildfires, floods, and record-breaking heat have left us feeling stressed and urgent in our need to act. But these fears may hinder our ability to find viable compromises.
Those of us advocating for a swift energy transition need to combat misinformation while also engaging with those influenced by it. We should be willing to compromise and find common ground with individuals who hold different views. Drawing from my experience as a doctor, I have learned that treating patients with entrenched beliefs founded on misinformation requires a certain approach. The anti-vaccine movement, for instance, tragically resulted in thousands of unnecessary Covid-19 deaths. I encountered patients who were gasping for air yet vehemently opposed vaccination. In these cases, bombarding them with statistics or sharing trial results would have been ineffective. Instead, I listened to their concerns, reminded myself that not everyone possesses scientific training, and tried to understand why they resisted the vaccine. Was it a conspiracy theory about government overreach? Or perhaps a misunderstanding of how vaccines functioned? Rather than dismissing their concerns, I acknowledged them and chose to highlight one specific benefit of the treatment. I might say, “You are correct that these vaccines were developed quickly. However, they utilize cutting-edge technology and have proven to be highly effective in preventing hospitalizations.”
In the context of transitioning to clean energy, a similar approach can be employed. Instead of disregarding concerns, we should acknowledge them and emphasize a single benefit that arises from adopting wind and solar energy: “You are correct that our world is undergoing significant changes, and I understand that it can be stressful. However, switching to wind and solar energy is one action we can take to ensure that we all have clean air to breathe.”
When dealing with those resistant to clean energy, we need to approach them with empathy and curiosity. These conversations need to occur repeatedly, just as they do with my patients who smoke. Change may not happen overnight, but through persistent nudging, individuals may start considering why transitioning is a logical choice, based on their own values and beliefs. Yelling and shaming are not effective strategies.
The potential benefits of garnering more support for offshore wind farms are immense. These vast installations are critical to achieving a healthier future, characterized by cleaner air and reduced global warming. Sometimes, making small concessions can be advantageous. For example, two out of the four wind farms proposed for the Jersey coast would be built much farther offshore than Ocean Wind 1, ensuring they are out of sight from beachgoers, according to developers.
The battle over Ocean Wind 1 is just one of many high-stakes conflicts over clean energy taking place across the country. The risk of losing these battles extends beyond our health to that of future generations. Instead of bickering with our neighbors on the beach, we should strive to focus our energy on the fossil fuel industry, which is attempting to blind us to their destructive actions.
Elizabeth Cerceo is an associate professor of medicine and the director of environmental health at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We value your thoughts on this article or any other. Here are some tips on how to share your opinion. Feel free to email us at [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
