All I Really Needed to Know about Renewable Energy Development...I Learned in the Cold War

We all know that kindergarten rules don't always apply in life. One that becomes victim to reality somewhere around first grade is the "it is ALWAYS a tie" fallacy. No winners or losers? Well, not quite. But, to the extent possible, you must NOT allow your project to be cast in terms of winners and losers. Between them, there can be no compromise. This is where third voices are so critical.

No matter your business, everyone has a sense of what it means to "go nuclear." You have played a card that cannot be pulled back and let all of your hopes ride on the assumption that your course of action will achieve success. I have talked about avoiding that kind of position in community engagement. After all, it takes all of your groundwork, all of your professional expertise, and - likely - many of your relationships and casts them to the wind.

THE HISTORY OF "GOING NUCLEAR"

One of the hottest bestsellers of the holiday season, Neil Sheehan's A Fiery Peace in a Cold War offers an historical analysis of Cold War diplomacy through nuclear proliferation, pointing out that one of the escalation factors was that both the US and USSR were looking at the question of proliferation as a game with winners and losers. Proliferation - by definition - is a scenario where the longer the game goes the higher the stakes get.

Anyone who has ever attended a public meeting or been active in local political affairs knows that with egos ::continue::and entrenchment added into everything else that is at stake in project approval, it can often come down to a simple calculation: "I've invested too much to lose." It could be investment capital or political capital, and it can happen on both sides of an issue. Reasonable compromises are lost to ill will. Being "right" becomes more important than the substance of the debate.

One example springs to mind from a recent Boston Globe feature on the surprising ecological benefits of transmission right-of-way clearance. Briefly, the story notes that scientists in the Northeast have been interested to find that high-voltage clearances offer some threatened species a safe place to begin thriving again. As a result, Katharine C. Parsons, senior scientist at Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Plymouth is among many conservationists that are looking at whether "new transmission corridors will serve as emergency exits for animals or plants as the climate shifts."

Globe reporter Beth Daley goes on to write that "Parsons is spearheading a new effort to work with states, companies, and wildlife groups to best site, construct, and manage transmission lines. 'Intervention is what we do, whether we are conservationists or not," says Parsons." As utilities and transmission companies nationwide are trying to think creatively about ways to overcome local roadblocks to building out a safe, reliable, renewable transmission system, Parsons and the Manomet Center seem like an obvious choice for a seat at the table. They have credibility and they have an interest in some "greater good."

WHAT IS A "THIRD VOICE?"

Third voices are parties engaged in the public process who are neither principals nor community members with obvious standing. More and more, these parties will self-declare. They might represent anyone from organized labor to local business to citizens concerned about climate change. They could be private and self-funded, they might be academic or even agencies engaged in community development or human service that are heavily reliant on public funds. As the picture shows, when two parties are arrayed in opposition, it is remarkable how a neutral voice stands out. A good third voice can serve as a great pressure valve.

(DIS)ARM YOURSELF

Third voices provide both a diversity of perspective that helps avoid "us-versus-them" escalation, and they offer an objective view of facts in dispute and contentious points. That absolutely does NOT mean they have to be disinterested or impartial as long as they air their agenda and join the process in good faith.

Call it disarmament.