A long-simmering disagreement within the environmental community over a plan to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass., is now boiling over into a highly public quarrel.
The future of Nantucket Sound?
Photo: NREL.
The four-year-old battle started heating up last summer when Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal, a shallow portion of Nantucket Sound south of Cape Cod. Kennedy -- a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council and a pioneer in the waterway-protection movement -- was on a sailboat for an event with the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the wind project. A Greenpeace vessel cruised up alongside with a banner that read, "Bobby, you're on the wrong boat" -- a stunt that was part of a larger Greenpeace campaign pressuring Kennedy to change his mind on the development. (Hear audio from the Greenpeace/Kennedy confrontation.)
In mid-December, Kennedy, wanting to explain his position to critics and the public at large, published an impassioned op-ed in The New York Times in which he argued that the wind farm would mar a precious seascape, privatize a publicly owned commons, and damage the local economy.
That, in turn, prompted about 150 environmental advocates -- including global-warming authors and activists Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan, Bluewater Network founder Russell Long, and youth leader Billy Parish -- to circulate a letter asking Kennedy to reconsider his position. "We are, simply put, in a state of ecological emergency," it read. "Constructing windmills six miles from Cape Cod, where they will be visible as half-inch dots on the horizon, is the least that we can do."
Signers of the letter also included "Death of Environmentalism" authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who made the quarrel far more personal -- and nasty -- in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle last month. They called on Kennedy to step down from his position at NRDC, and took a swipe at his famous family by criticizing "the privileged patricians of a generation for whom building mansions by the sea was indistinguishable from advocating for the preservation of national parks or big game hunting in the wilds of Africa."
Kennedy shot back this week with his own opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, calling Shellenberger and Nordhaus's attacks "dishonest vitriol."
Choosing Sides
The venture at the center of all the fuss -- the Cape Wind Project, being developed by Cape Wind Associates -- would be the first major offshore wind installation in the U.S., and one of the largest wind farms in the world. It would produce enough electricity to meet nearly 75 percent of demand on Cape Cod and nearby islands Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, with peak output of 420 megawatts.
The permitting process for the project, which began in 2001, is nearing completion, and Cape Wind is widely expected to get the green light from the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service within a year. If state permits for the sea-bottom transmission lines are obtained, as expected, construction on the wind farm could begin mid-2007 and be completed in roughly two years.
The Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and a handful of local and state conservation groups have raised concerns about Cape Wind. On the other hand, a number of major national environmental groups have been supportive, including Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and NRDC. Some, though, are waiting to officially endorse the project until the final environmental impact statement comes out later this year and clears up uncertainties about avian impacts and other issues.
"Most of the data so far on possible environmental impacts has been very encouraging, but there are still questions we want answered," said Nathanael Greene, NRDC's renewable-energy expert. "Our position currently is cautious enthusiasm. It's a historic proposal with incontrovertible benefits." The group's comments on Cape Wind's environmental impact statement characterized the project as "the largest single source of supply-side reductions in CO2 currently proposed in the United States, and perhaps in the world." NRDC reiterated its position on the wind farm in a statement released the day Kennedy's New York Times op-ed was published.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Cape Fear
In his op-ed, Kennedy contended that "[h]undreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore ... [and] the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands."
He framed the debate as a clash between industry and wilderness: "[S]ome places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound ... All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity, and to God."
Kennedy agreed last Friday to meet with representatives from the group of letter writers to discuss their request, but indicated in an interview this week with Muckraker that he doesn't intend to change his position -- rather, he hopes to convince his critics to change theirs. "It's dangerous for environmentalists to have the knee-jerk reaction that all wind power must be good," he said.
Kennedy said in the interview that his primary concern is not the project's impact on wild sea life and ocean views, but the economic impact it would have on the local fishing community. "It will evict more than 100 of Cape Cod's treasured commercial fishermen who run sustainable operations from their traditional fishing grounds, and destroy their livelihood," he said, explaining that their nets would get tangled in the electric cables on the seabed. According to Kennedy, the project could have an over $1 billion impact on the local fishing industry and the tourist economy, given the blighted views and obstacles it would pose to the thousands of recreational sailors who visit Nantucket Sound annually.
"I think it's a big mistake for environmentalists to alienate our natural allies like commercial fishermen and boaters, who have long been strong supporters," he said. He argued that the hard feelings and publicity surrounding Cape Wind could tarnish the reputation of wind energy nationally. "This is a very badly sited project that will end up hurting the battle against global warming, not advancing it," he said.
If the turbines were built five miles farther beyond the coastline (they are now currently planned for about six miles offshore), where they wouldn't interfere with fishing interests, Kennedy said he could back the project. He also said he supported offshore wind projects in other regions that would pose less of an economic and environmental threat, including two that have been proposed for offshore areas near Long Island and New Jersey.
"I never intended to be a champion on this issue," he said, alluding to pressure from Greenpeace that forced him to defend his position. "There are plenty of places to put windmills, and plenty of projects I will support. But there's only one Horseshoe Shoal. You can't move your fishing ground somewhere else."
Cape Wind Avengers
Cape Wind CEO Jim Gordon told Muckraker that environmental reviews of the project refute many of Kennedy's claims about the potential environmental hazards and noise pollution. Cape Wind and its backers also argue that the development would pose minimal harm to the fishing community, noting that the cables carrying the electricity back to shore would be embedded six feet under the seabed.
Some proponents of the project argue that it could actually attract tourists who would want to see the nation's most ambitious symbol of a clean-energy future. (It's not as nutty as it sounds -- offshore wind installations in Ireland and Denmark have proved a boon to tourism, not a setback.)
The developers say there is no viable location for the project other than the shallow waters of Nantucket Sound. "Any farther out would be cost-prohibitive," said Gordon. "The challenge for this project is to demonstrate that wind power is not only environmentally safe, but commercially viable."
Even if there were an alternative site, advocates say, redesigning and re-permitting would delay the project several more years.
"We simply don't have that kind of time," said McKibben, "given widespread predictions that the climate crisis could be irreversible in 10 years without substantial reductions in carbon output."
Gelbspan argued that even if the turbines were to deprive 100 or more fishers of their jobs, "The calculus is not hard: that is a more-than-reasonable trade-off. This landmark project would offset approximately 880,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of keeping over 150,000 vehicles off the road. What's more, it would create between 600 and 1,000 new jobs, and be a crucial springboard for fast-tracking renewable-energy development in America." He added that state officials, as well as the project developers, should be obligated to help any fishers who lose their livelihoods through buyouts, retraining, or assistance in finding new fishing grounds.
To John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, the debate comes down to weighing local NIMBY concerns against global climate concerns. "I respect people who wage NIMBY battles -- the environmental movement was founded on people protecting their local, sacred areas," he said. "But today, solving the climate crisis has become so urgent that it trumps NIMBYism. It's as simple as that."
A Long and Windy Road
Several Cape Wind advocates praised Kennedy as one of the most charismatic and influential leaders in the environmental community. Yet they raised concerns that his leadership on this issue would be hobbled if he appeared unwilling to make certain sacrifices.
Said Gelbspan, "Kennedy's decision to counterpose such extraordinarily unequal consequences -- the wind farm's negative impact on coastal views and local fishermen versus its critical role in forging climate-change solutions -- bespeaks a lack of understanding of the consequences of escalating climate change."
Kennedy vehemently rejected the notion that he doesn't take the climate crisis seriously. "There is nobody in this country who is more concerned about global warming than me, nobody," he told Muckraker.
Indeed, Kennedy has helped bring mainstream visibility to the climate issue through lectures, fund-raisers, and rallies. He even played a role in convincing FOX News to air a surprisingly scientific special on climate change in November, in which he appeared as a correspondent (much to the consternation of right-wing pundits).
Kennedy also said he was emphatically opposed to an amendment unveiled by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) last month that would prohibit all major offshore wind installations from being sited within one and a half miles of a commercial shipping route, even though it would block the Cape Wind project. Young attached the amendment to the Coast Guard budget bill, which is expected to be voted on in February.
Yet even if Young's amendment doesn't pass, other congressional efforts to thwart Cape Wind are likely to follow in this final year of the project's permitting process.
The fight over Cape Wind is far from finished.
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
WWLD: What Would Lincoln Do?
Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative
Comments
View as Flat
rh Posted 4:57 am
13 Jan 2006
He wants to send the windmills 5 miles further out, in the interest of the fishermen? Or, is it b/c at 5 miles further out, he knows the windmills would be beyond the horizon and thus invisible?
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these being built on a shoal precisely because it's shallow? What sort of commercial navigation is taking place on a shallow shoal? The Alliance is grasping at straws, and RFK Jr. seems to be the latest one...
C'mon Bobby! Join us and support this project!
Permalink
mihan Posted 5:16 am
13 Jan 2006
i had a nightmare a few nights ago, where we really had reached the point of no return, and everyone knew it. it warn't purty. i woke up with a sense of relief and a sense of doom.
we need to do everything we can to slow climate change, and do it now. sell your car. take the train instead of flying.
Permalink
colinpeppard Posted 6:29 am
13 Jan 2006
Permalink
Erez Luke Cohen Posted 8:07 am
13 Jan 2006
Last week a new petition was published on the nets calling all internet users to sign and by that support the basic goals of Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions worldwide.
The creation of a global civil echoe to the international negotiations regarding this issue should promote a vaste change in the conception of Climate Change worldwide as country leaders will hopefully understand that their citizens want them to be more active on that matter.
Please join this and sign the petition at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/179477556
Permalink
Roger Lamb Posted 12:40 pm
13 Jan 2006
By get, I mean understanding that the question is of transcending urgency, that it represents the one overarching global civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced.
Clarifying, he adds:
It's just that when [other environmental] efforts come into conflict with the imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place.
Why? Because even if we win every other battle, if we lose this one, it won't make any difference at all.
Summing, he thinks acting urgently on global warming is a necessary condition for success in any of the other environmental "battles" dear to the hearts of environmentalists.
He may be right. Yet if he is right, there is nothing about the semantics of his claim that requires there are not other similar necessary conditions. There may be several, maybe even many, of them.
We used to think that winning the fight against continual population growth was like what Bill thinks is true of winning the fight against global warming. Lose that battle, and you'll lose all the rest, we thought. Hopefully, we were wrong - because if that battle is not already lost, it must be very close to lost. If we were right and the battle is lost, then we are in rear-guard-actions territory right now.
In general, I think we need a discussion of what the present priorities of the environmental movement should be. What are the "questions of transcending urgency" - what are the priorities? What battles are "musts" for us, in order that we can carry on and sensibly engage in other battles? Perhaps it will turn out that one of the most important environmental battles will be the political battle to remove Republicans from office for a couple of generations.
Perhaps, too, working against species loss is an example of a battle which must be won if various other important battles are to be sensibly engaged in. After all, even if we win the fight over global warming (as hard as that might be to credit), and badly lose the fight against species loss, we automatically lose other battles as well, e.g., the fight to preserve what wilderness there is left.
But we need the discussion about priorities, about dependency relationships between the issues - in order to be maximally effective (or, at least, minimally ineffective).
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:22 pm
13 Jan 2006
With the time and money wasted arguing and litigating over this one wind farm....how many times the power capacity could have been installed where there are no NIMBYs?
And given a wind farm many times the size of the Cape project, that could have already been up and running on the northern great plains, how much closer would we be to the meaty 10% level of the exponential growth curve that chatacterizes the adoption of a new technology?
Investment on a national scale, instead of getting tied down in endless bickering over one wind farm. Rather than fighting a diversionary battle, move forward with the real home front effort to win these energy wars.
10s of thousands of 1000 foot scale wind machines are needed to really win this battle. North Dakota,South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota... all welcome wind energy development.
If this green energy revolution is really that vital, and I believe it is, build capacity out where it is actually wanted first. Then as that 10% level is approached and passed the momentum created will get projects going in places like Cape Cod, without blunting the leading edge of this important movement.
Only 3000 of these very large wind machines across the northern great plains would get US to the level of 10% of total electric power generated by wind.
And last but not least of the reasons to at least modify the Cape Wind project as RFK jr suggests?
The time and money spent in endless litigation would be better spent on moving the whole project further offshore, possibly on floating platforms. That would open up the entire coast line of the US to offshore wind, wave, and ocean current power generation.
If NIMBYs can't see them from shore, it makes everything so much easier.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 1:15 am
14 Jan 2006
Permalink
Dave D Posted 1:20 am
14 Jan 2006
Robert Kennedy Jr. has done a disservice to the very interests he claims to protect. There is an important element missing in his commentary: that is, a disclosure. Mr. Kennedy and other members of the Kennedy family own property that overlooks this area. The arguments they use against this project are the same as those used by opponents to action on global warming, whom Mr. Kennedy vigorously opposes. This glaring conflict weakens the political authority the Kennedy family has maintained over many years.
Mr. Kennedy makes many incorrect assertions.
The first is this area is a navigational danger. It is a shoal, which is shallow water and is marked as such on the navigational charts.
The second is that the fishing industry will face losses. While beautiful on the surface Mr. Kennedy ignores the perilous condition of the fisheries, largely due to incompetent state and federal fisheries management, which has allowed the depletion of fish, dwindling numbers of species, and compromised habitat. In fact, the Capewind project creates an opportunity for a marine reserve, which, would serve as a natural marine nursery seeding hundreds of square miles of adjacent area.
These wind generators produce no pollution. The failed energy policy of The United States forces our exposure to poor air quality from electrical generators like Canal Electric in Sandwich, Massachusetts. The emissions affect the health of all people in the area and those creatures living in the air, on the land, and in the water. In addition, transportation of fuel oil to the Canal Electric facility has resulted in major oil spills. The imposition of meaningless penalties for such incidents allows business interests to consider them a cost of doing business.
Mr. Kennedy uses data on tourism developed by the Beacon Hill Institute, known for developing positions for the special interests funding the study. Wind installations in Denmark actually increase tourism, which is directly attributable to people including wind farms in their sightseeing plan.
The most important issue is the nation's thirst for energy will demand oil exploration and production off the coast of New England. Allowing the construction of this facility creates a strong position from which to argue against any drilling. Interestingly, there are no regulations against oil platforms in this area.
Mr. Kennedy needs to examine the facts before staking his claim. Surely, the view of numerous oil drilling platforms would not be as pleasant as a stand of graceful wind machines.
Permalink
UncleMoose Posted 1:30 am
14 Jan 2006
"It's just that when [other environmental] efforts come into conflict with the imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place."
If Bill is right - that everything else has to take a back seat - is the question really that we need more generating capacity, or is it that we need to conserve severely and get local? Living as I do, without electricity and with extremely efficient wood heat, I am notice that most people are thinking more about the former and less about the later. In order to succeed, I think we will need both approaches.
However, in order for the latter approach to succeed, we will need to preserve the ecosystems which can support our less technological existance.
Lets consider food, for example. One of the lowest impact forms of protein is individually harvested wild meat and fish. Certainly, there is not enough for everyone, but if rural people better used these resources sustainably rather than trucking in meat from feedlots (industrial ag is a huge CO2 source!) we'd all be better served.
However, if in our haste to defeat global warming we build windmills where they destroy important wildlife habitat, then local people become that much more dependant on fossil fuels.
Yes, Global Warming should be our priority, but success lies in more than just putting up wind mills - we need a wholistic approach. This is incompatable with the myopic authoritarian statements of Mr. McKibben and others.
P.S. I also think Kennedy's statements reak of entitlement, but its not the real heart of the matter.
Permalink
UncleMoose Posted 1:48 am
14 Jan 2006
RFK's idea of putting the windfarm farther out at sea is ridiculous
Putting it where proposed is not a great idea, as it may harm fish and birds
Bill McKibben et al are being too myopic
Perhaps a better idea would be to put the Wind farm on shore nearer to where the majority of the power is needed and in an area that is not a major flyway. (It is well documented that migratory birds use coast lines and major waterways as flyways) In this way, losses to transmission and bird and fish casualties are lessened.
The point about oil platforms is also good, but does not address the reality of flyways or fishing.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:01 am
14 Jan 2006
Good point moose. This is why RFK is dead wrong on the fish issue, apparently he is pandering to the fishing industry.
I still think that if the project were located further offshore out of sight, that protection of fisheries would be greater. Keeping the worst pond net fishing away from coastal waters.
By designing floating platforms that collect wave and ocean current power as well as wind, the extra expense of the platforms and longer power cables could be funded without raising the overall cost per kwh of the energy produced.
If course jd you have a point, why not put human blight in already blighted industrial and farming areas?
But out of sight, underwater is the industrial fishing blight that we don't see.
Consider how a barrier of offshore wind, wave, and ocean current platforms would curtail the industrial fishing that is destroying life in the ocean. It kills 100s of fish for every one fish actually used.
And when a guy like RFK jr who knows this is still pandering to the fishing industry, it is clear that the only way to save ocean life is to build some sort of physical barriers. There is very little push even by environmental groups to address this hopeless cause.
I think I used your own argument to beat you on this one jd. Try and get out of this one, if you can! Hehey.
Permalink
UncleMoose Posted 5:40 am
14 Jan 2006
I hadn't thought that putting the windmills farther offshore might create a barrier capable of keeping big trawlers out while allowing locals to keep fishing while hopefully helping the fish and their habitat recover.
However, I'm still not convinced that this is economically feasable, plus there is still the specter of fuel and chemical leaks from the transformers. Plus, won't the windfarm become an underwater windfarm as sea levels rise from melting ice caps? Better to locate the windfarm on higher ground inland.
Maybe use a portion of the profits to build a fence of nautical "cal-trops" like the one the Sea Sheperd deployed near Newfoundland to keep the trawlers out? ;> A man can dream....
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:12 am
14 Jan 2006
Creating a barrier that prevents industrial fishing would be a good thing, but that still leaves the harm caused by destroying a natural area with a windfarm. I don't know how else to communicate this, but my spirituality tells me that all natural areas are sacred and that everything, including the water, air, and sky, is alive. I could thus never support something like this. I unequivocally oppose all industrial projects in any natural area.
I also strongly disagree with all the hysteria about global warming. I'm really sick of saying this, but global warming is NOT the most important environmental issue - extinctions and ecosystem destruction are far more destructive - and we should be opposing the cause of air pollution, not its symptom of global warming.
Permalink
Dave D Posted 1:59 am
15 Jan 2006
This area was rich as a fisheries resource. As a boy, circa 1960, I remember an abundance of numbers and species of fish one does not see today. This area has been studied by many in the marine research community. A majority of these studies conclude very few species occupy or use this area except as incidental. A marine biologist once said "Any marine structure becomes habitat" and these wind generators would be no exception. Any reduction in fishing, especially dragging the bottom will be a clear benefit to the health of this ecosystem.
As the debate rages one must remember these wind turbines use a single structure as a foundation and once jetted into place allow the natural flow of the bottom sands.
Capewind should be required to post a bond covering the eventual removal of the towers. In the future the U.S. will have the technology to develop offshore generating facilities but we do not at this point.
It is important to think of this project as a step on the way to energy independence. It is not permanent; it is not polluting; and once removed the shoal's shifting sands will cover any evidence it was ever there.
We have a moral obligation to allow this facility because what we are really talking about is a short term loan of a much loved area for the future protection of many more just like it.
Dave D
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:45 am
16 Jan 2006
Panels have already been installed over a few parking lots, they keep the cars cool which uses less air conditioning energy.
Combined with wind and solar installed over already blighted industrial and farm land, maybe no wild natural areas need to be used for power generation.
I'm not sure how one could come up with these figures, but it might be interesting. It just might help your argument against large windfarms.
I'm going to try to find some of this data, starting with total roof and parking lot area. If large windfarms and solar installations are truly unecessary, I would be against building them too.
Maybe some estimate based upon per capita parking and roofspace would produce an accurate figure?
It is hard to beat the synchronicity of floating energy platforms and protection of ocean life from industrial fishing though. Barriers of this kind will never be built without the energy feature of this concept.
Permalink
caprimulgiformes Posted 11:16 pm
16 Jan 2006
Perhaps Ross Gelbspan needs to go back to the basics, do the math and advocate for Conservation rather than the Wind Power Industry.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), if every American household replaced 5 of their current light bulbs with 5 compact fluorescent light bulbs, it would save as much energy as if we took 8 million cars of the roads.
Let's see on one hand, raping the Nantucket Sound for the Wind Industry would result in the equivalent of removing 150,000 cars off our roads; On the other, replacing 5 current light bulbs with 5 compact fluorescent light bulbs would be the equivalent of removing 8 million cars off our roads. Do the math Ross. If we were to replace 5 light bulbs with 5 compact fluorescents we would offset 53 times the amount of carbon dioxide a year in this country... that is 46,640,000 tons as compared to 880,000!
Funny how the simplest things are often the most overlooked.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:25 am
17 Jan 2006
Change the bulbs..AND use wind, wave, and solar power. And go to electric cars and geothermal heat pumps.
Are you against wind power or just this particular project? Do you favor nuclear and fossil fuel power generation?
Permalink
ed abbey Posted 4:36 am
18 Jan 2006
if you guys would put your energy into good use shutting down the corporados instead of trashing each other, maybe we'd have made more progress by now
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 4:47 am
18 Jan 2006
The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) problem IS a factor with wind energy. Another thing I noticed is how some alternative energy folks are in a kind of denial about this.
I'm not sure what the deal is other than most people are selfish and feel that if such a site imposes on them it is not fair and thus they shouldn't have to be compromised, even if it is for a larger good.
It is quite surprising and illuminating that RFK Jr. has come out in opposition to this project. (Please, let's not quibble about the merits; if monied folks are willing to fund it, it's probably worthwhile -- It's a big wind source near a large population center. QED.). As a politically savvy Kennedy, he knows the political capital that he is burning up to hold this position. So why is he doing it? Because deep down, like all Kennedy's (or rather, like all politicians) they are first and foremost self-serving. They really aren't interested in helping people, only in providing that illusion to further themselves. Sure, if they actually can do some good, they will, but when push comes to shove their personal concerns come first.
Also, it doesn't further your point by just yelling that the opposition that they are stupid. Rather, try to acknowledge their concerns. One thing I think that many seem to forget is that the windfarms are probably not a forever thing, just something to last 50-100 years or so until something better comes along. Then they can take them down and the view will be there for their children. Plus (big plus!) there will also be a world for their children to be in.
Permalink
fiver Posted 6:09 am
18 Jan 2006
Cape Winds power generators are not "vitally important" in the fight against global warming, as these commentators claim. Cape Winds, "one of the biggest projects in the world" will at best supply electrical energy for a projected 70% of Nantuckett, Cape Cod, and Martha's Vineyard. This is not even a drop in a barrel of oil, compared to our energy needs, and hardly the results that will allow us to stop worrying about global warming.
The simple truth is that we must cut our energy use. Rather than building noisy, ugly, bird-killing giant windmills for a billion dollars, we as a society with dwindling resourses might well consider investing in mass rail transit, and energy saving technology. Merely lowering the speed limit to 55 mph would save more energy per year than could be produced in ANWR, and save many more lives per year than were killed in the World Trade Towers. Even Nixon could figure that one out.
Like drilling in ANWR, which is admittedly more about torturing the enviros and milking the taxpayers than solving our energy problems, I have to suspect that building a wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod entails motives beyond satisfying our craving for energy. And the motives are not pretty.
Permalink
pw Posted 6:25 am
18 Jan 2006
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"
The second is, how many feet above sea level is Cape Cod?
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 7:13 am
18 Jan 2006
I'd like to applaud Fiver for noting that the Cape Wind project may be motivated for just this division creating reason. That's quite possible. Look how the gay-marriage debate played so well in directing the 2004 election. Well, assuming that, there's a way forward: build the damn windfarm!
Building it indicates a strength of conviction and an understanding of sacrifice to achieve a larger end. Not building it means that if someone screams loud enough, it will reach our PC hearts and halt us to inaction.
Fiver's other comments are basically defensive in nature and not logically based (though often heard). It is true that any one project does not address our energy needs significantly. But that attitude will keep us from ever getting started in the first place. We have a HUGE problem!
The point that one can conserve instead is also misplaced. As mentioned above, the energy problem is a HUGE problem! We can't afford either/ors. We have to do both.
Fiver, I think you are wise to notice that perhaps a trap is set. Now try to have the wisdom to deny them. All of these projects will have some environmental downsides. None of the ones I've read so far (RFK Jr. has to stoop defend fishermen instead of fish, fercrissakes...) are the least bit persuasive in any kind of objective sense. Fiver, it's kind of crummy they targeted your area, but that's what happened. But you still have the power to deny them a victory.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:31 pm
18 Jan 2006
My thought when I got no response was that they must get a lot of emails, mine was deleted.
Is there another possibility?
Was this whole project designed to divide the environmental community on energy policy? Maybe the developer was duped by an offer to finance this project?
The corporate forces that oppose green energy control the allocation of capital through interlocking board rooms.
The neo-conservatives in control of the bush administratiion spent 200 million on a disinformation campaign in Iraq.
Is it possible that banks allied with big energy companies would offer millions (that would never be spent)for a project like this, knowing it will never be built? they would lose nothing. But the green energy revolution is left in the dust.
Permalink
fiver Posted 1:18 am
19 Jan 2006
However, I don't like to see waste and violence done to the earth, in the service of our hunger for power.
I am preparing a longer response to you and Bill McKibben. Stay tuned.
Permalink
louisacvegas Posted 7:23 am
19 Jan 2006
While on vacation in Ireland just a couple of months ago, I was so happy to see the windmills off the coast. I couldn't hear them. They weren't an eyesore. Ships were going around them. I have no idea how much energy they produce, but all I could think was, at least they're doing something. Of course we need to do everything we can in order to conserve, but Americans will not give up their lifestyle, and so we must seize every opportunity to add renewable energy to the mix.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:09 pm
19 Jan 2006
Fiver is correct: lower your energy use and, I would add, population. Don't destroy more of the natural world in a never ending search for more energy to power more needless crap.
Permalink
scott s Posted 1:38 am
20 Jan 2006
No issue needs to take a "back seat" because the fight against global warming is the struggle to save birds, plants, trees, ecosystems and all the rest.
Global warming is global, local, air, land and water all at the same time.
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 5:48 am
20 Jan 2006
Well, it might surprise you, but I agree with you. We have too many people on the planet that are now chasing after too few resources. I don't doubt that for one minute.
But what I don't understand is why is this project picked to voice this concern? If it is built or not built, the onslaught of world population increase will still occur. If it is built, then at least the people of Mass. see the implications of what energy use entails. Maybe we should all have windmills in our backyards. Jeff H's comment about pristine nature is confusing to me. Aren't the fishing boats 'unnatural'? Why no clamor about them (or the recreational yachts as well, for that matter), as they are cruising about the Cape even now? I'm sorry, but your comments really don't make any sense to me.
Let's say we (the U.S.) cut our energy use to what? 10 percent of present? OK, that means we'd use about 10 Quads of energy per year. That's about 3 TRILLION Megawatt-hours. Now to be fair, that's not all electrical power, but even so, it's reasonable to assume one TRILLION Megawatt-hours would come from wind. What does that mean? Well, it means we'd be building wind turbines in the Cape area anyway.
Again, I don't understand why you choose this venue to air your quite valid grievances. Maybe a better place would be the organized religions (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Mormon, etc.) all of whom, to a greater or lesser degree, encourage their followers to increase their numbers by breeding irresponsibly. Isn't THAT the real issue you are concerned about?
Permalink
pw Posted 2:35 am
22 Jan 2006
Maybe if you stop the windmills, your next project should be to reclaim Cape Cod's natural beauty. Okay whose house is first to come down?
Permalink
kjbpod Posted 2:52 am
26 Jan 2006
Huh. Seems to me that ever since the industrial revolution, we've been putting unnatural industrial things in natural areas. Weren't it all natural before we plunked them factories there?
If you are arguing that keeping "natural areas" pristinely free from human-made objects is more important than reining in our current levels of over-consumption and its attendant effects on the biosphere, you are just plain wrong.
I'd rather see elegant wind turbines offshore than the brown miasma of pollution that is now visible from so many coasts. Both are unnatural and human made, but one is a solution, the other a problem.
Permalink
fiver Posted 6:52 am
26 Jan 2006
"Americans are not going to cut back on their consumption. They are not going to change their lifestyles." I hear this again and again, from the pages of National Geographic's controversial, "The End of Oil" issue, to this very Gristmill.
People say, "do you want nuclear power plants, or do you want a few dead birds?" Do you want ugly brown scum, or billion-dollar windmills that barely run a few low-power islands?"
I don't think these are fair questions or useful questions. If we want to do anything--if anything is still possible--to turn down the thermostat on global warming, we must cut back--we must immediately lower speed limits. We must start getting cars off the road. Without mass transit, we are going to be in trouble.
Fantasies that we can continue our wasteful ways are "fueled" by such projects as these windmills. People say, "it's not an eitheror proposition. We can build the windmills AND cut back." I don't believe it, especially when these people continue, "besides, Americans won't cut back!" That makes me feel doubtful.
The huge windmills (A billion dollars to build, folks!) do not represent cutting back. They represent a dream of a technology that will allow us to continue our wasteful ways. And they do abuse the environment, through their manufacture, construction, and use.
And all for the power to run a few tiny islands. It's a bad joke, and I have to ask why we are wasting our time and resourses, when both are so crucial right now.
Permalink
Sportyanne Posted 5:41 am
27 Jan 2006
We shouldn't sacrifice the livelihoods of family fishermen or national landmarks when better locations exist.
Let's push the wind farm further offshore and make it ten times bigger!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:32 am
27 Jan 2006
Permalink
GreenOrlando Posted 4:37 am
30 Jan 2006
Permalink
dannymorlando Posted 10:56 pm
04 Feb 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:47 am
05 Feb 2006
Cheney and crew are giggling with glee at the dirty tricking they have acomplished by feeding both sides of the battle over Cape Wind, while the obvious, prtactical solution that RFK proposed is ignored.
Site them further offshore, out of sight, and off the fishing grounds. The Norwegians have the technology that is needed and are testing it now.
Adopting this solution opens up the whole coastline of the USA for wind and wave floating power stations. The much larger machines possible will more than make up for longer power lines underwater, and bring the green, clean kwhs harvested in at even lower cost.
And the power stations will block foreign pond net fishing fleets that are destroying all life in the ocean from US coastal waters, something our government has not been able to do.
This will save the livelihood of US fishermen and US fisheries.
Permalink
howardgw Posted 12:56 am
19 Feb 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:28 am
19 Feb 2006
How about that for a site?
Permalink
GoshenGreen Posted 3:36 am
24 Feb 2006
Furthermore, consider the essential goal of these wind farms: to give energy and prosperity to the people of the surrounding area. We must ask, "prosperity in what way?" We could give them energy, but it might mean taking some other things (food, diversity, peace, economic sustainability...). Should we really be rushing to solve something that has such a big effect on so many people?
Permalink
GoshenGreen Posted 3:40 am
24 Feb 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:53 am
24 Feb 2006
No need to rush, you are probably right that this will not work anyway.
1000s of huge wind plants and millions of new solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps, and enerfy efficient building are needed to avert almost certain disaster.
I choose to be optimistic and fight on anyway.
It's a free country though (maybe it still is?), you are free to take the pessimistic view, then all there is to look forward to is death. Not only for each individual, but for generations to (never) come.
I prefer to fight for the living planet in the short time I have.
Permalink
arkmundi Posted 6:22 am
28 Feb 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 am
02 Mar 2006
Keep it up at it's present location and the energy company lobbyists will outlaw all offshore wind.
Put Cape Wind on floating platforms further offshore or drop it. Fighting over this one project is devestating any future for renewable energy.
Meanwhile the northern great plains goes begging for wind power investment dollars. Tragic.
Permalink
quieterhue Posted 3:09 am
08 Mar 2006
Permalink
Amy Gregory Posted 3:18 am
09 Mar 2006
The fate of Cape Wind lies in the hands of Congressional committees. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has tried to insert an amendment to a Coast Goard bill that would kill Cape Wind. Greenpeace joined with other orgs in lobbying against the amendment and due to big public pressure, the vote was postponed. You should still send the Congressmen a message telling them to reject Young's amendment and keep Cape Wind (and other future projects) alive.
Join with tens of thousands of others, you're email will make a difference.
Permalink
ericr Posted 8:00 am
09 Mar 2006
And that's the rosy picture of the sales brochure. Two-thirds of the time, the turbines will be generating power well below their average rate, so the 24-square-mile power plant would provide the electricity used by 75% of the cape and islands only a third of the time. And even then its output would fluctuate such that continued operation of conventional plants to balance it would be required, seriously diminishing if not cancelling the hoped-for environmental benefit.
The turbines will function only as giant billboards to advertise McKibben et al.'s concern for the planet. If McKibben gets global warming, which I think he does, he should be getting angry about such an obvious boondoggle as industrial wind power that changes nothing.
Permalink
Amy Gregory Posted 1:13 am
13 Mar 2006
Permalink
Amy Gregory Posted 4:51 am
13 Mar 2006
In order to reap the tremendous benefits of utility-scale renewable energy, the proposed project must be economically viable. This wind farm will be built entirely with private funds, since no government funds are available for construction. The existing government incentives that do exist will be paid to the company only as energy is produced.
Cape Wind will usher in a new era of clean energy to the United States by leading the offshore wind industry. Already wind farms have been proposed in other places like New York and Texas. Offshore wind is critically important, especially in the Northeast region, to ensure the success of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which is a cooperative effort by northeastern states to reduce carbon dioxide - the main greenhouse gas that causes global warming.
Permalink
ericr Posted 11:56 pm
13 Mar 2006
It is notable that Clarence does not provide an example of existing wind plant causing the reduction of fossil fuel burning or emissions on the grid. The record is that they have no effect.
He emphasizes that the project must be economically viable. That is because the financial benefits are based on raw production, not reduction of other sources. In addition to actual energy, they can sell "green tags," that clever scheme invented by Enron to sell the PR benefit as a separate product.
All this at an acre for every 15 people on the cape and islands: not what most people would call environmentally sound.
Permalink
ericr Posted 1:22 am
14 Mar 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:00 am
14 Mar 2006
BTW are you opposed to solar power too? Do you prefer "clean" coal,nuclear, or horse and buggy?
Do you figure global climate change is a hoax or that it's benign? Maybe you like pumping all the CO2 from clean coal down into old oil wells?
Permalink
Amy Gregory Posted 4:10 am
14 Mar 2006
As a final note, I wanted to share these links with any of you who are interested. They are from a range of sites:
Greenpeace
Clean Power Now
Cape Wind
GE
Union of Concerned Scientists
Permalink
ericr Posted 7:10 am
14 Mar 2006
Permalink
greymoon Posted 4:31 am
09 May 2006
Permalink
ed abbey Posted 6:51 am
22 Jun 2006
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/400
Put that sucker on land, land that's already trashed. Stop supporting the theft of the commons and the corporados who profit from it.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 9:17 am
22 Jun 2006
I guess that I am saying that these arguments are mostly BS, driven by NIMBY attitudes from douchebags that should probably stop pretending that they want what's best for everyone.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:12 am
10 Nov 2008
You can put those windmills 20 miles out, and no doubt one, if not more, drunk Kennedys will find a way to scuttle their yachts on them.
Permalink