Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently went to a section of Nantucket Sound between Cape Cod and Nantucket Island to inspect the site that has been selected for a wind energy farm. His visit was designed to evidence the Obama Administration's intent to act on developing renewable energy resources. The proposed Cape Wind project is supported -- and opposed -- by various stakeholder groups in Massachusetts.
There is a larger issue at play, too. On February 19, Sec. Salazar will convene a group of East Coast state governors to get their input on developing a broader regional approach to offshore wind energy development.
Consider this meeting scheduled for February 19. Which stakeholder groups would you expect to support offshore wind development? Which would you expect to oppose it? What messaging would you recommend to help solidify support from allies, mitigate opposition from foes, and win over agnostics?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020702965.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This situation is complicated because it does not follow a simple story line where the audience can easily recognize "the bad guy." Rather, old environment (preservation) is being pitted against new environment (clean energy for the future). While the Obama administration is determined to have at least one of it's initiatives succeed, it cannot approach the Native Americans as if they are in the wrong. It does seem as though the Native Americans are trying to possibly strike a deal but that has yet to work out. As Cape Air Chief Executive Dan Wolf stated in the article "I have not seen a lot of softening on either side of this."
If the Native American are able to strike a deal, they could gain more money but lose their preserved land. If the government backs off of the site, they will have to search for a new site (who knows how long that will take) but will not be looked at as bullying Native Americans and will furthermore stopped losing millions of dollars in lobbying efforts.
The overall goal is to make the first, successful offshore windfarm to set an example for the rest of the country. However, with the battle starting off so sour, it does not paint a pretty picture for other communities considering windfarms. Stakeholders include local residents who will see the windmills, both local and distant residents who could benefit from the added energy, the government who will have a success story and can more easily pave the way for energy, and animals who could lose habitat. A more distant stakeholder would be countries that we export oil from who could lose money as we decrease our dependence upon them (which could impact our future foreign policies).
The message should be "bipartisan" in that it should not be the government versus the Native Americans but rather the government engaging the Native Americans and any other stakeholders (without giving in). The government must also make sure it has truly picked the right location. Tactics should include many meetings between tribal leaders and government officials as well as striking a deal that financially helps the Native Americans (and could possibly pave the way for Native Americans re-focus their business efforts). Success will be measured if the wind farms are built in Nantucket Sound.
The issues are several-fold. There is an aesthetic issue, a renewable energy issue, clean energy issue, energy independence, for coastal towns such as the cape, there are travel/tourism issues, environmental issues, and waterway issues that affect shipping routes and national defense. On top of all that this kind of initiative require a paradigm shift for the country as a whole.
This issue is interesting because it invokes strong emotions across the spectrum of stakeholders. Stakeholders include local residents, state and local governments, travel and tourism boards, local businesses, Coast Guard, commercial shippers, manufacturers, oil and electric companies, users of traditional methods of energy, native americans, various environmental groups, really the list is long and inclusive.
In order for Salazar to really bring all these stakeholders onto the same page, he must find a message that resonates with all of them. It doesn't seem that it is possible to do this, but really falling back on the patriotism of American citizens will do the trick. Also, taking a play out of the Herb Brooks playbook with the 1980 US mens hockey Olympic team (most commonly known as the 'Miracle on Ice' would work as well.
In order to unite the individual college hockey players on his team to defeat the Russian hockey team, he had to create a common enemy for them to fight against. For the Miracle on Ice hockey team - that enemy was Herb Brooks himself. To unite the various stakeholders to support wind energy it could very well be the enemy of foreign oil dependence and its linkage to terrorism.
Lots of strategic planning is necessary for this situation because of the complexity of the issue and the numerous stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include the Obama administration, certain members of Democratic party, Governor Deval Patrick, and the Energy Management company, which is seeking to build the farm.
Opposition to this offshore project involve Native American tribes, environmentalists, and local residents who would see electricity rates increase if this project is solidified. Additionally opposition includes, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose family compound overlooks the sound and fiercely opposes it.
Some possible message strategies could include: Our country needs to become more energy independent. Also, reinforcement of the importance of clean energy and that renewable energy is one of the imperatives in our country at this time could be re-addressed. Costs of electricity may go up as a result of the project; however development of renewable energy resources is important for the future and environment. The Department of the Interior can also continue to assist in trying to resolve the differences between the tribes and Energy Management, with financial incentives in a continued attempt to appease the involved parties.
There are several different stakeholders involved with this issue. The most predictable, the Obama Administration, environmentalists, local governments, and local citizens. As noted in the article, Native American groups have become stakeholders as well. Those in opposition appear to be the local citizens and governments; while those in support are the Obama Administration and environmentalists. For those who support this initiative the messages they need to focus on are the need for U.S. produced renewable energy. While the short term effects include increased prices, wind energy will decrease prices in the long term. Another message that the Administration should focus on is the need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy and produce our own in the U.S.
This situation is interesting because both sides of the issue have very valid arguments. Stakeholders include:
local residents and businesses, the Obama Administration, environmental/wildlife protection groups, Native Americans, NGOs which support Native American cultural values, American taxpayers, fisherman and others living off the seas/coastline, and oil/gas/traditional energy companies/organizations.
Stakeholders which would support offshore wind development would be the same as those who support alternative energy sources - except for the curve ball thrown with the environmental impact at hand with this issue. Even within the broad support of alternative energy, some NGOs and other groups may be more concerned with the impact to local wildlife and the regional economy. That produces a schism within the very support group that is expected to support offshore wind development.
Anticipated opposers would include wildlife protection groups, local fisherman and others who rely on coastal tourism, and some area residents. Although, as mentioned above, there is quite a bit of overlap on this issue so key Stakeholders within the same group may have very different opinions on the issue (only adding to the complexity of the issue).
I agree with many of the other posters, perhaps framing offshore wind development as a solution to the dependence on foreign oil would be the best approach for messaging. Although, there is the risk of backlash with some groups, including concerns about "ruining" our environment for the sake of a few dollars. All in all, the patriotism approach may be the best bet to get the most opposers on board and to confirm the support of the most key Stakeholders.
This is a complex situation that involves many stakeholders. Stakeholders include environmental organizations, local citizens, local governments,the Obama administration,Energy Management company, tourism and business organizations, commercial fishing and boating groups, air safety commissions, civic and recreation associations, health organizations, academic and scientific leaders, institutions, and Native Americans.
Introduced in 2001, the Cape Wind Energy project has faced its fair share of challenges. Both supporters of the project and those in opposition have secured their position. As stated in the Washington Post article on Feb. 8, 2010, "It has cost millions in lobbying fees and has prompted an intense political debate on Cape Cod and in Washington, setting those who back renewable energy against those who want to preserve the natural beauty of Nantucket Sound."
Potential environmental impacts of the The Cape Wind Energy project range from negligible to major and include resources such as air quality, fisheries, water quality, avifauna, noise, climate, oceanography, cultural resources, visual resources, etc.
I also agree with other posters that the patriotism approach may be the best way to garner additional support for not only Cape Wind, but future renewable energy initiatives in the U.S. Interior Secretary Salazar is moving forward by inviting all East Coast Governors to unite on Feb. 19 to develop a regional wind development strategy.
Messaging should focus on the benefits of this cutting-edge technology (e.g., cleaner air, green jobs). Messaging should encourage project opposers or undeciders to come together and embrace the "winds of change" in an effort to implement Cape Wind. Further, messaging should ease the economic and environmental fears of local citizens by informing them that Cape Wind will reduce pollution as well as energy costs. Finally, messaging should include a statement indicating that bird life, aviation, tourism, and commercial fishing will not be compromised.
According to a Washington Post article on Feb. 9, 2010, "wind power now accounts for 1.5 percent of all electricity used around the world, and many more wind farms are planned."
I think with the host of so many different stakeholders from public to private to historical significance, finding the few people who have changed their stance to the positive (building the off-shore wind farm) and getting them to speak up more. I really don't agree with the thought that if they can do it off-shore, might as well build it on the ground we got. The Native Americans would just put that down so quickly with the same reason they applied for national historical site. As a 10 year battle for the future, I agree with Whitney when she said that somehow they need to shape the message to show that they are in it for the future so we don't have to rely on foreign oil as much. And focus on the positives of the wind farm, less pollution, ect. Also the financial aspect. I am not sure if Mass. is hurting for jobs, but wind farms definitely helped job and education creation in Iowa. Should they bring in first hand accounts from Iowan's? I might not hurt to have them lead town halls, speaking honestly about how the land and lives changed.
The Obmama Administation has certainly not chosen simple issues to attempt to tackle during their time in office. The Cape Wind project is a complicated issue with layers of stakeholders.
Interested parties include the Administration, Congress, state governments, local governments, tourism boards, utility companies, local citizens, utility consumers who will see prices rise, Native Americans (both local and nationwide), and environmental groups (like others have said) on both sides of the issue: those for clean energy and those against environmental degradation.
This is a difficult issue to message because there are not clear "sides" and even stakeholder groups are divided. According to the article, Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Patrick - both Democrats and generally allies - sat squarely on different sides of the issue. Environmental groups are divided and there more than likely will be division amongst East Coast governors.
I think Jenny had a really good idea of creating an enemy. Trying to send the same message to all of these groups would be very difficult and probably contradictory. If you could create an enemy that all groups could unite against, you may have some success.
However, I ultimately think that messaging combined with action is the only real solution. If the Administration wants to get this done, they are going to need to 'put some money where their mouth is' so to speak. The Administration would need to gain the backing of Congress to supplement Native American preserved land; provide incentives for utility companies to invest; provide subsidies to consumers who will pay more for power; build the wind turbines using clean materials with the least amount of environmental impact; and engage in a tourism development project for the affected area. Once in place, careful messaging of these projects to respective stakeholder groups would be needed to gain enough support to begin construction.
This is a complicated situation and I feel like it can't be compared to developing other wind farms on the coast like the article did. The one major difference with this specific wind farm is the local Native Americans. I think this group will be the hardest to get to agree with the wind farm. It will be hard because their history is there. The administration needs to find a way that will make the local Native Americans happy but at the same time it can't look like the Admin forced or bought them out. This has always been an issue with Native Americans, they have treated very poorly in the past by the government and they still have lingering displeasure about the gov.
As for the other stakeholders that oppose the wind farm (locals, fisherman, tourism, environment groups, property owners) the Admin needs to reassure them how it will benefit them. It will help reduce energy cost in the long run and it will help reduce the US's dependence on foreign oil. Another thing that it can stress is how this will help create jobs for the local economy. I am not sure how many people it will take to run an wind farm but they will defiantly need people. Also, it will create jobs to build the wind farm.
Well, I'm obviously coming late to this discussion, and I won't rehash my classmates comments. I agree with them on the stakeholders and the major issues. I think a major obstacle is NIMBYism. Those local residents passionately opposed also have money to fund powerful special interests.
The one thing I think groups Cape Wind and the administration could do better, for now and for always, is to involve local residents from the start. I'm not suggesting the plan should be put to a vote, but rather that locals should be an integral part of the planning process, which would give all opinions and concerns voice and enable the project managers to provide residents with actual facts. Absent this option, people form reactionary opinions that are often based on speculation and which spread virally through families, groups of friends, and eventually whole communities thanks to the Web.
At this point, it's a bit late in the game for this strategy, but they could still try to use influential local supporters to sway general public opinion. And they need to engage in a serious and respectful dialogue with local Native Americans to come to an agreement. Absent that, I think they would have to choose a less conspicuous location - and one that is not in the backyard of native tribes, the wealthy, or the influential.
This case seems like a classic cautionary tale. To the scientists and developers, Cape Wind seemed like a no-brainer. But overcoming public opinion and well-funded interest groups is another story. Engaging them from the start may have mitigated some of that. Perhaps they did - though you'd never know from their website.
Post a Comment