States are going against the green energy wave and reverting back to the status quo: fossil fuels. In Wyoming, elected officials are mulling a legislation to add a tax to wind farms. In Vermont, the state senate voted to shut down a 38-year old nuclear power plant that is receiving a 20-year extension to operate.

The Wyoming legislature, in an apparent nod to the coal industry, is trying to “even the playing field” between coal and wind in the country’s eight windiest state. In a sign the bill is intended to slow the development of commercial wind farms only, the legislation does not tax individuals who produce wind for their own consumption.

The promulgation of a tax may seem duplicitous for a state whose representative in Congress, Cynthia Lummis, cosponsored a bill last year “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Obama Administration and Congress should end the assault on America’s energy independence by leaving in place domestic energy tax incentives.” But to Representative David Anderson who sponsored the bill, it is about equity. “In comparison with the way we’ve taxed the petroleum and extractive industries, the wind industry needs to pay its fair share.” Apparently $1 per megawatt hour is that fair share.

Although recent leaks of radioactive tritium gave the locals a scare, the state’s decision flows against the recent push to allow regulatory flexibility and financial support to encourage the building of nuclear power plants. Safety concerns and storage of radioactive waste from will always be key concerns for increased nuclear power– the drivers in Vermont appear to be the poor safety record and relations with the government. The decision by the state clouds the regulatory picture for the operation of new plants as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission usually has sole responsibility to regulatory.

The recent fore of both states into the energy is well within their purview but underscores the difficulty in pushing forward with a national energy plan that reduces the US reliance on fossil fuels.

In the past couple days, the New York Times has published two stories about new energy. In one about new controversial gas drilling in Colorado, The Times is pretty clearly against drilling. There is a risk of pollution (there always is an environmental cost in all energy, including green energy). But what upsets The Times is its aesthetic damage to the Roan Plateau.

“The rugged hills are dotted with sage and aspen groves. Some creeks are watering holes for cattle, but most appear untouched, rushing through the deep shale canyons that define the plateau’s topography. Vegetation hangs from some escarpments, and smooth shale slabs hold back pools of trout.”

The Roan has roads and development but its beauty holds a special meaning to many inhabitants who want to preserve it.

The following day, The Times condemned a similar aesthetic concern about Nantucket Sound where the Wampanoag tribes have objected to a wind farm.

“Tribal officials say their culture requires them to greet the sunrise each day and that this ritual requires unobstructed views. Their claim should be rejected by the responsible federal and state officials. Another round of bureaucratic reviews would drag out an approval process that has gone on much too long and give opponents time to find some other way to derail the effort… The alliance includes many local people but has been largely underwritten by wealthy homeowners from Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod who hate the idea of having 440-foot windmills on the horizon.”

I’ve never been to either place: I’m sure they’re both lovely. Of course, neither may be the Grand Canyon or other place of such wonder and beauty that they become an international treasure.

But I am not sure why one is aesthetically worth preserving and the other isn’t — except that The Times is pro-green energy, the same way the gas companies, which seem rather more immune to the delights of the Roan plateau, are pro-gas. It’s not the beauty of the landscape to The Times — it’s the beauty of the idea.

I’ve seen wind and shale gas projects — there are both near where I live, and I have to say, the huge turbines are strange and majestic but somehow not hideous (although they do apparently harm migratory bird populations and cause other problems). On the other hand, a shale gas well, after drilling, is roughly the size of a garden shed — not a terrible blight on the landscape and possibly easier to hide than a cell phone tower or a ranch. And I am not choosing with any side. There are significant problems with all the choices.

Giant oil rigs, coal strip mining, careless traditional well placements are ugly. They absolutely do ruin a beautiful landscape. In calculating wind or gas projects, the natural landscape must be considered – but fairly and equally.

While I am not a specialist in green technology, I could not help but be depressed by an article in the New York Times Tuesday about China’s rare earth minerals and metals.  

The Times and many other papers announced Tuesday that China which “currently accounts for 93 percent of production of so-called rare earth elements” plans to cut its exports of these minerals in order to get manufacturers to open plants in China. Today, China did a bit of backpedaling to reassure the rest of the world that rare earth materials would still be available.

While obscure, these elements and metals are used in a number of green technologies, including magnets for wind turbines and batteries in hybrid cars, and in missile systems.

What especially caught my eye was the Times report that

“some of the minerals crucial to green technologies are extracted in China using methods that inflict serious damage on the local environment. China dominates global rare earth production partly because of its willingness until now to tolerate highly polluting, low-cost mining.

To get at the materials, powerful acid is pumped down bore holes. There it dissolves some of the rare earths, and the slurry is then pumped into leaky artificial ponds with earthen dams, according to mining specialists.”

Western green technology at the cost of extreme pollution in another country. China’s environmental problems, not limited to the mining sector, are well-known. How do environmentalists resolve this moral dilemma? They cannot force China to clean up its act; they cannot repudiate hybrid cars and other green technology. Will environmentalists support development of rare earth extraction elsewhere, like in Australia, California, and Canada? Can green technology engineers find alternatives to rare earth? I will be interested in following how they resolve this predicament.

Green tech leaders meeting this week in Las Vegas at the National Clean Energy Summit conference sponsored by Democratic Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid used the opportunity to complain about the lack of government support. Despite recent announcements from the Obama Administration that some initiatives are moving, the money is not going out the door as fast as they would like.

But its not just funding that is delaying alternative energy development. There are more structural issues such as permitting that all levels of government need to address to foster green projects. For example, fears over the fate of the sage grouse are stymieing plans for a large-scale alternative wind energy project in Wyoming developed by Texas-based Horizon Wind Energy. As such projects increase in scale to create efficiencies, they are becoming ensnared in permitting issues as they may create other environmental problems.

The government will seek to reduce the environmental impact of any large project, but at some point the government must make a fundamental decision. Either sacrifice large renewable projects, which means relying on older more polluting fuels that affect many species, or build a project could affect just one.

As the governments in the US debate permitting issue, other countries, such as China are making decisions and companies, such as Evolution Solar Company are jumping ship and finding more profitable opportunities there. Stimulus funding will no doubt give green tech companies some support, but without a more flexible regulatory environment, the US will still be behind the green curve.