It has always been a belief of mine that sometime within my lifetime, ecologically sustainable business will experience an economic boom. I maintain that as the myriad effects of fossil fuel (ab)use, land degradation, and pollution become increasingly apparent, public demand for “green practices” will eventually force a significant government and market response. If you don’t believe me, wait about 70 years until melting artic ice drives the polar bear to extinction. Scientists can talk all they want about thermohaline currents and the Keeling curve, but wait until Coca Cola’s mascot goes the way of the dodo and see what kind of hell breaks loose.

Then again, it may not take that long to see a response. It’s widely agreed upon in the scientific and academic community that the greatest environmental dangers facing mankind in the next century are global climate change and land degradation. One of the most desirable solutions to these problems is the development of renewable energy sources like solar power, hydrogen fuel cells, and wind power. A reduction in the demand for fossil fuels would result in fewer greenhouse gases emitted and a decreased incentive to exploit virgin oil and coal reserves.

There’s a tendency to think of renewable energy sources as futuristic technology, something that will eventually become a part of our daily lives but for now is too expensive and impractical to implement. While this is still true of solar power and fuel cells, wind power is now poised to contribute significantly to the US energy mix. Wind-generated electricity currently costs around five cents per kilowatt-hour, a price only slightly higher than that of coal or natural gas generated electricity and about as expensive as nuclear power. The costs are predicted to fall further as turbine technology becomes more efficient.

As is often the case, world markets have been quicker to acknowledge the commercial feasibility of wind farms than the US government. Wind energy is growing fast, especially in Europe where the market has been doubling once every three years. Current market support for wind power development in the United States has come from unexpected sources as well. This past March, Wall Street’s prestigious Goldman Sachs Group Inc., purchased Zilkha Renewable Energy, a wind-power development firm. A month later, Starbucks Corp. announced its intention to purchase “green tag” investment bonds for the development of US wind-power resources.

According to Forbes Magazine’s business rankings for 2005, five of the twenty largest corporations in the world are classified as “Oil and gas operations.” If you sort the list by this past year’s profits, three of the top five are “Oil and gas.” Any ECON 1 student can tell you that the basic purpose of a government subsidy is to promote the growth of a struggling startup business and yet the federal government annually budgets, through direct assistance and tax breaks, around $10 billion in oil and gas subsidies and about $4 billion for coal. As high as gas and oil prices are these days, many taxpayers don’t realize that they’re paying even more every April.

In truth, the real price of fossil fuel generated electricity is hidden in a complex web of externalities (the economic term for costs, like pollution, that are not factored into a product’s market price). These costs are usually borne by governments and so ultimately taxpayers are responsible for paying. Extensive research has been done on the subject of ecosystem valuation and external costs and some of the factors often taken into account are:

• Pollution-related sickness and its resulting treatment costs and missed workdays.

• Agricultural costs of sulfur, nitrogen oxide, and mercury emissions.

• Biodiversity loss associated with the acidification of water bodies and soils.

• The emission of greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen dioxide and their eventual effects on climate change.

On the whole, studies suggest that coal’s real cost, relative to its market cost, is anywhere from 2.8 cents higher per kilowatt-hour of electricity up to about 10 cents higher. Natural gas projections range from 1.7 cents/KWH up to about 4 cents higher than market price. Similar attempts to internalize wind power externalities project the added costs to max out around .25 cents/KWH.

Right now, the biggest obstacle to wind-power’s growth in the US isn’t the development cost: it is the artificially low price of gas, oil, and coal. Despite the large margins of error inherent in any environmental valuation, the bottom line is clear: if fossil fuel generated electricity were allowed to reflect its real costs, its price would rise significantly. In many cases it would come to lag behind alternatives like wind in price.

While market forces are undeniably the largest obstacles facing wind power today, it’s ironic that the country’s most contentious development plan has nothing to do with economics. The Cape Wind project seeks to meet almost 75% of the area’s power demands by constructing 130 wind turbines seven miles off of the coast of Nantucket Sound. It’s cost effective, practical, eco-friendly, and residents hate it. The debate surrounding the Cape Wind project is complicated and can be approached from a number of different angles. So far the arguments have focused on the project’s economic and environmental impact. For example, there is considerable disagreement about the effect that the turbines might have on the local fisheries, which are a valuable and historical component of the area’s economy. Critics posit that erecting the towers will damage breeding grounds and prohibit fishermen from gaining access to some of the most valuable hatcheries. Proponents of Cape Wind cite studies on similar projects, which have found that offshore turbines often create protective habitat, which can actually increase the success rate of commercial fish spawning.

The project’s ecological elements have bred the awkward situation of environmentalists battling amongst themselves. On the one hand, the project would result in a net savings of twenty thousand tons of carbon a week that would otherwise be produced by conventional fossil fuel techniques. On the other hand, local residents feel that the construction of the 400 ft. tall turbines (which despite their distance out to sea, would be visible from the shore) would be an affront to the area’s natural beauty.

At its heart the opposition meeting Cape Wind is a classic case of “Not-in-my-backyard.” Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, and Martha’s Vineyard all sport some of the priciest real estate in the US and a number of high-profile celebrities own a stake in the area. Residents such as legendary newscaster Walter Cronkite, Pulitzer Prize-winner David McCullough, and the Kennedy family have all come out against the project. By far the most intriguing aspect of the issue is its environmental justice subtext. The Cape Cod area is growing and if the Cape Wind project does not go forward, more power will have to come from somewhere. This would most likely be from a new coal or natural gas plant built in one of the less prosperous surrounding townships. If that happens, it’s a safe bet that those residents’ complaints won’t make the national news.

While Cape Wind would be the first offshore wind project built in the US, it’s not without international precedent. A similar project, albeit of smaller scale, was completed off of the coast of Denmark in 1995. When it was announced the project met many of the same obstacles that Cape Wind has recently encountered. Now, after operating for a decade, local residents barely even notice the wind turbines spinning on the horizon. Niels-Ulrik Bugge, the current chairman of an association of 2000 residents that was originally against the 10-turbine project now says, “I don’t know anyone who is bothered by the wind turbines. As a matter of fact, nobody ever seems to talk about the wind turbines anymore.”

In the long run it seems that these economic and public relations problems are only slowing down wind power’s inevitable proliferation. In the US, projects less controversial than Cape Wind are proceeding at an increased pace while much of Europe continues to bring more turbines online. The Kyoto Protocol and its carbon credit program are playing a big role in shifting the economic playing field towards renewables as countries work to comply with new global emissions standards. New Zealand, for example, recently announced its intention to institute the world’s first tax on carbon emissions, a move which other nations will likely follow in time.

Perhaps most promising of all are recent reports from China announcing that country’s intention to begin construction of its first offshore wind farm within the next year. The wind power project is part of China’s larger effort to meet a target of producing 10% renewable energy by 2010. Even if wind power does manage to become a major player in world electricity generation, we’ll still be a long way from energy sustainability. But at least for now, global commitments to the development of wind power bode well for future environmental initiatives.

Tom Glazer is an Environmental Studies major and is currently attending college on Exxon-Mobil’s dime.