Misinterpreting 'no'

The Guardian title reads "Not in our backyards, say Germans, in blow to C02 plans".

Local opposition has indefinitely stalled a 60 m carbon capture and storage demonstration site from going into operation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) filters carbon out of coal power plant exhaust, turns it into liquid, and stores or buries it underground indefinitely. Because of the huge amounts of existing coal power plants, CCS is deemed by many governments as integral to cutting emissions, and, as the Guardian writes, 'could save the planet from global warming.'

So, the article explains, the residents of Spremberg, who have voiced skepticism about the safety of the technology, and effectively blocked planning permission are, naturally selfish. They have protected their own community at the expense of the world as a whole. They are practicing NIMBY-ism (not-in-my-back-yard).

As an environmentalist it is easy to draw such conclusions. We're searching for answers to one of the world's most pressing problems and anything that stands in the way is naturally an annoyance.

But, in my opinion, local resistance and fears about the safety of a technology is entirely legitimate. The idea of having thousands of tons of liquid carbon dioxide buried beneath your home and schools is naturally a scary thought, even if scientists insist that it is safe. To call this NIMBY-ism might be confusing the legitimate rights of communities to look after their local environment and livelihood. After all, they might also believe that no other community should have to be similar guinea pigs. In which case their response in 'no', not 'not in my backyard'.

As more and more new planet-saving technologies enter trial phase, local resistance will increase. But these global problems are also local ones, and they must make sense on both levels. if it doesn't work for the 25,ooo residents of Spremberg, then it won't work for the planet as a whole. Only real engagement and education can help bring these agendas together.