Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge

12 Jan 2006

The one and only time I ever saw my mother become aggressive in public went like this. We were out as a family for a weekend leaf-peeping drive, an impulse apparently shared by most of the rest of New England, because the traffic along New Hampshire's Kancamagus Highway was endless 90-degree gridlock. Every once in a while, however, somebody would zoom happily by in the breakdown lane. We watched them with a kind of mounting zealous anger. It would never have occurred to my parents to emulate them -- that would have been wrong. But eventually my mother, sitting in the passenger seat, could take it no longer. She rolled down the window of our Plymouth, stuck out her head, shook her finger at one of the passing lawbreakers, and yelled ... "Unpleasant!"

How can anyone ignore this?

Photo: iStockphoto.

I'm by nature a conflict avoider too -- if you're thinking of cutting in line at the supermarket, you couldn't ask for an easier mark than me. But twice last week I acted in ways entirely out of character. I signed a letter criticizing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his New York Times op-ed opposing the big Cape Wind project. And I wrote a few paragraphs disparaging the most powerful of my local environmental groups, the Adirondack Council, for the way they'd worked on clean-air issues. Both criticisms were respectful -- I am my mother's son -- but they were also stern. I wouldn't have enjoyed being on the receiving end of either one (though a lifetime of book writing does tend to inure you to bad reviews).

They were also, at some level, divisive. In both cases, you could truthfully say I was willing to inflict a little damage on an important part of the environmental movement. It doesn't mean, I hope, that I'm growing a mean streak. I think it means something else: that the environmental movement is reaching an important point of division, between those who truly get global warming, and those who don't.

By get, I don't mean understanding the chemistry of carbon dioxide, or the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, or something like that -- pretty much everyone who thinks of themselves as an environmentalist has reached that point. 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. That it's as big as the Bomb.

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

In The Same Vein

The Wind and the Willful
RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm

Do I think Bobby Kennedy Jr. is a bad environmentalist? No, I think he's a great environmentalist. I've heard him convert 400 Republicans at one fell swoop in the auditorium of my Adirondack high-school gym. Hell, by helping establish the Hudson Riverkeeper, the guy added a whole new class of words to our vocabulary -- now there are baykeepers and airkeepers and summitkeepers. He's sued and written and organized with passion and prowess. But his op-ed on Cape Wind, with its (risible) fear that the windmills might be heard ashore, showed that he hadn't quite understood just how critical the need to get the U.S. off fossil fuels really is.

In the face of that need, even possible damage to the livelihoods of commercial fishers is distinctly secondary. If someone were proposing to erect a giant blender in Nantucket Sound so yachtsmen could obtain frozen margaritas more conveniently, then Bobby would be right to object, and the rest of us would go along with him. Instead, they're talking about the nation's first big offshore wind complex, one that would in effect allow residents of Cape Cod to use electricity nine months of the year without emitting a single carbon atom.

If we had decades to burn, then he'd also doubtless be right that there's a better site for the thing, and a nicer developer. There's always a better site and a nicer developer. But in the real world, according to Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we have at most 10 years to reverse this trend. Which means we have to do everything quickly -- hybrid cars and solar panels and compact light bulbs and local food and tree planting. And windmills, lots and lots of windmills, just like off the shores of Europe.

In the best of all possible worlds, we'd do everything slowly and carefully -- but this planet is rapidly becoming the worst of all possible worlds, a place that before my daughter dies may well see temperatures exceeding anything since before the dawn of primate evolution. A planet facing hundreds of millions of environmental refugees as a result of rising seas, with heat waves like the one that killed 35,000 in Europe becoming commonplace occurrences. I mean, we went through the usual hurricane alphabet this past year, and got all the way to the Greek letter Zeta.

By the same token, the Adirondack Council has been extraordinarily useful over the years. I've worked with them in the past, and I hope I'll do so again. They have worked hard -- quite rightly -- to battle the acid rain that is killing our lakes and ponds in northern New York. But in those efforts in recent years they've been willing to undercut the rest of the environmental movement, working with the Bush administration on Clear Skies legislation that postponed the battle over regulating carbon dioxide. They were even willing to invite Bush for an Earth Day photo op in the Adirondacks a few years ago, just weeks after he'd reaffirmed that the U.S. was going to have absolutely nothing to do with Kyoto.

It's not that everyone needs to work on global warming around the clock. We desperately need riverkeepers and acid-rain activists and people working on water and endangered species and rainforest preservation and wilderness and all the other things that first got most of us into this movement. It's just that when those 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. You can "keep" every river and bay and lake and mountain and wilderness, but if the temperature goes up 5 degrees globally, it won't matter. The fish that live there won't be able to survive, the trees that anchor the landscape will die, the coral reefs will bleach and crumble. Even an Adirondacks whose ponds are the correct pH is a pretty sad place if it's an Adirondacks without winter, without hemlocks, without trout. Whatever the particular part of the world that we're each working on, it's still a part of the world. Global warming is the whole thing.

None of this is easy. If you've spent your life fighting for birds, it's hard to say "some birds may die in this windmill" (and it's perfectly smart to work with turbine manufacturers and wind developers to minimize that possibility, as many people have). But what we need to say is: every bird, and everything else that we know, is fundamentally at risk in the next few decades. In the name of birds, I want that windmill on my ridge. In the name of wild beauty, I want that windmill out my window.

And in the name of doing something about global warming, I'm willing to be a bit of a jerk.

A new and updated version of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, the first book for a general audience about global warming, will be published this winter. McKibben is a member of Grist's board of directors.

Comments: (56 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Sorry, Bobby

While I think RFK Jr. has been a huge and important presence in the enviro community, I can't agree with him on this one. This project needs to be built, and built now.

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!

by rh at 11:57 AM on 13 Jan 2006

the nightmare has arrived

right on! we have reached the crisis point: ask the polar bears, inuits, harlequin frogs, etc.

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.

by mihan at 12:16 PM on 13 Jan 2006

Bill - 1; Bobby - 0

There was a previous thread on the Gristmill where many seemed to agree with RFK Jr. in opposition to Cape Wind. As someone who worked to support the Cape Cod wind farm for almost 2 years, I was really dejected that my fellow Gristies didn't seem to get it. There were a million things I wanted to say, from corrections of RFK's facts to emotional appeals about the priority of clean energy. McKibben did a great job of saying them for me, and probably with a lot more tact! Thanks, Bill!

by colinpeppard at 1:29 PM on 13 Jan 2006

People of Earth Ratifying Kyoto Protocol

It is time that the people will have their say.

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

Erez Luke Cohen People of Earth ratifying Kyoto Protocol http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/179477556

by Erez Luke Cohen at 3:07 PM on 13 Jan 2006

"Getting It"

Bill says:

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).

by Roger Lamb at 7:40 PM on 13 Jan 2006

Years of delay.

If the urgency of global climate disaster impells the use of wind power over any local objections, why does that same emergency not impell us to simply drop controversial projects like this that delay the build out of wind power for years.

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 1:22 AM on 14 Jan 2006

Project Modifications

I was mistaken. Considering that RFK is associated with a very conservative enviro group (NRDC), I should have known that he opposed the project for the wrong reasons. He wants to site it FURTHER offshore?! To hell with that! It should be sited onshore, where only the humans who benefit from generation of unnatural energy will suffer the consequences. No wind farms in natural areas! Put them right where the energy is being used, not where the rest of the Earth has to suffer because humans lost our way long ago.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 8:15 AM on 14 Jan 2006

Cape windfarm and RFK Jr.

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.

by Dave D at 8:20 AM on 14 Jan 2006

More on "Getting it"

Bill McKibben says:

"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.

by UncleMoose at 8:30 AM on 14 Jan 2006

Put the Wind Farm on shore!

To further clarify my position:

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.

by UncleMoose at 8:48 AM on 14 Jan 2006

Triple threat floating platforms.

"...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."

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:01 AM on 14 Jan 2006

Merits of an offshore wind farm

The point I was trying to make is that preserving small fishing and clamming interests for local consumption could be part of a strategy to combat global warming.

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....

by UncleMoose at 12:40 PM on 14 Jan 2006

Overfishing

Amazing: I am totally opposed to industrial fishing and eat only fish OK'd by the Monterey Aquarium. http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp I suggest everyone else do the same.

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.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 1:12 PM on 14 Jan 2006

Cape windfarm

Studies have been done on the flyway issue. They conclude the wind farm will cause avian mortality at extremely low rates. The rotation of the blades was reduced to help mitigate this hazard. One must measure avain mortality against the near annual oil spills occuring from the transport of fuel to nearby generating stations, which kill thousands of birds. The air pollution from these generating stations are impacting ecosystems, avain included, on an unimagineable level.
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

by Dave D at 8:59 AM on 15 Jan 2006

Total area.

I wonder what the total roof and parking lot area of the USA is? And what percentage of that area is suitable for solar panels that produce heat and electricity simultaneously?

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:45 AM on 16 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

The wind and The willful

An article yesterday in GRIST entitled "Environmentalists face off in wind saga" quotes environmental activist Ross Gelbspan stating that Cape Wind is a landmark project that "would offset approximately 880,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of keeping over 150,000 vehicles off the road."

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.

by caprimulgiformes at 6:16 AM on 17 Jan 2006

Not either or.

These two actions are not mutually exclusive.

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?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 7:25 AM on 17 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

cape wind sucks

forget "sorry bobby", sorry, bill and the armchair enviros! stop w/the voice of god trade-offs and the divisive rhetoric already! this project was still-born from the get-go. put those suckers on deer island (already trashed by the outfall pipe, etc.), put them on f'ing beacon hill or ontop of walmart, not in a flyway. jeez!

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

by ed abbey at 11:36 AM on 18 Jan 2006

A Point to Make (more than just squawking)

I've been quite surprised over the last six months (personally) about how high a NIMBY factor there is for wind farms. I went to a renewable energy conference and saw quite a bit of opposition to wind farms even among many of those attendees.

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.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

by jimbeyer at 11:47 AM on 18 Jan 2006

Give Bobby a break

It's distressing to witness environmental activists bickering over wind generators off Cape Cod. Bill McKibben, Shellenberger and Nordhaus, and the New York Times find an easy target in Robert Kennedy Jr.--who according to them doesn't want his view or sailing opportunities sullied by unsightly windmills. To me, the issue appears a little more complicated.

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.

by fiver at 1:09 PM on 18 Jan 2006

re:The Wind and the Willful

Reading this debate two things keep popping into my head.

"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?

by pw at 1:25 PM on 18 Jan 2006

Fiver's comments

I think Fiver's comments are quite interesting, but perhaps not in the way she/he intended.

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.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

by jimbeyer at 2:13 PM on 18 Jan 2006

Yep jim.

I emailed the developer of Cape Wind years ago telling him to locate it where people won't see it. Before this project he developed cogeneration facilities.

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 7:31 PM on 18 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

Blink in the Cape Wind

Dear Beyer, I live in Denison, TX, far from the elegant Cape Cod venue. So your reference to my selfish interest in the Cape Wind project was misguided.

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.

by fiver at 8:18 AM on 19 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

carpe diem

It seems to me that some of the arguments against building Cape Wind are just a little bit of fearmongering. While I will not refute them all, I will give examples from personal experience. As someone who grew up on the beaches of Southern California, from overpopulated Orange County to beautiful Santa Barbara, I can attest that having oil rigs offshore did not stop people from going to the beach to enjoy the view and reconnect with nature. If hideous oil platforms don't scare people away, why on earth would windmills?

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.

by louisacvegas at 2:23 PM on 19 Jan 2006

Eye Of The Beholder

Louis, maybe unnatural industrial things like windmills and oil rigs don't bother you, but they're not natural and have no place in any natural area. Your statements show an extreme disconnection from nature.

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.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 11:09 PM on 19 Jan 2006

The magnitude of global warming

Terrific op-ed Mr. McKibben. The efforts of no environmentalist should be discounted. But global warming is a bigger, tougher, and potentially devastating problem than any other in environmentalism. It is simply a difference of magnitude.

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.

Scott writes at CommonInsight.com.

by scott s at 8:38 AM on 20 Jan 2006

Less Energy, less consumption, less people

Well, I think I understand now where Fiver and Jeff H. are coming from: Since we are using too much energy, we should cut our consumption, not build windmills.

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?

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

by jimbeyer at 12:48 PM on 20 Jan 2006

Re:The Wind and the Willful

There seems to be some feeling that looking out on the ocean and seeing windmills will spoil the perfect beauty of a natural paradise. Um, folks turn around, stop looking at the ocean for a moment and look at Cape Cod, it may be a nice place to live but it's no Yosemite National Park. I think the roads and houses, etc. sort of take away from that. So if you can put up with destroying what was probably a natural wonderland 400 years ago, why should these windmills make a difference? The word hypocrite comes to mind.

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?

by pw at 9:35 AM on 22 Jan 2006

"unnatural" areas

Jeff says: "maybe unnatural industrial things like windmills and oil rigs don't bother you, but they're not natural and have no place in any natural area."

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.

by kjbpod at 9:52 AM on 26 Jan 2006

elegant wind turbines

Maybe I don't like the wind turbines because they remind me of the monsters in the War of the Worlds. Maybe it's because they kill thousands of migrating birds. Maybe it's because I believe we are entering an age of diminishing resourses, and that we cannot waste our precious time, labor and materials on ridiculous boondoggles like giant windmills.

"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.

by fiver at 1:52 PM on 26 Jan 2006

RFK, Jr. Is Right On

I couldn't agree more with Kennedy's assessment that the Cape Wind project is poorly sited.

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!

by Sportyanne at 12:41 PM on 27 Jan 2006

Right arm!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/26/1723898.html

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:32 PM on 27 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

Not in my backyard

Preventing this wind farm from being built is just sad. It shows that no one in power will allow public interest to take precedance over the energy lobby. :(

-e Greener, cleaner, better. GreenOrlando.com

by GreenOrlando at 11:37 AM on 30 Jan 2006

NOPE - Not on planet Earth

Which is more damaging - a fossil-fueled power plant or wind turbines? The pundits who are against placing windpower off of the Cape are simply bowing to special interests and looking at today and are not looking forward at the future of the planet and the future for our children and grandchildren. Windpower causes little to no damage to the environment or its species as compared to all other types of electricity generation. Feral cats kill more birds than a turbine ever will -(http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html). There is no down side to windpower. Our planet is quickly warming up because of undeniable factors mostly caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Remember, we are living on a sphere floating in a vacuum that is sealed except for inputs and outputs of infrared radiation. Every ecosystem on the planet is in decline and our power needs continue to grow (China, India, etc.). Where in this sphere do we want to build the next pollution spewing power plant. If the cape doesn't want wind then they should be required to generate their own power on the island with a fossil-fueled power plant. Then let's see which technology they choose. It's easy to be on your high horse when your electricty comes from an unseen source next to someone elses home.

by dannymorlando at 5:56 AM on 05 Feb 2006

Giggling

I think that the only people trying to keep the Cape Wind project from being sited further offshore are it's opponents, and those who have been duped by the opponents of renewable energy.

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 7:47 AM on 05 Feb 2006
[ Parent ]

Cape Cod wind farm

Wind and solar energy are likely the most benign sources of electricity available to us, and there are ample opportunities to tap into them without wrecking other valuable assets. What is missing is any national policy to site facilities in environmentally acceptable locations. We are unnecessarily knocking heads over battlegrounds chosen by companies with no national or environmental interests. This can only ensure continued poor siting choices, as exemplified by the Cape Cod project.

Howard Wilshire

by howardgw at 7:56 AM on 19 Feb 2006

Prairie restoration wind park.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1752958.html

How about that for a site?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:28 AM on 19 Feb 2006
[ Parent ]

On Bill McKibben

Bill McKibben acts as though the only thing that is going to stop global warming is wind farms. While I agree that wind farms would be a great asset, I think we also need to think about what is really at the root of the energy problem: our excessive lifestyles. These wind farms are not going to solve everything, and at one point or another we are going to be forced to come to terms with the negative effects our lifestyles have on our world.

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?

by GoshenGreen at 10:36 AM on 24 Feb 2006

in agreeance

Fiver, I couldn't agree more with your post!

by GoshenGreen at 10:40 AM on 24 Feb 2006
[ Parent ]

Too late already

"Should we really be rushing to solve something that has such a big effect on so many people?"

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:53 AM on 24 Feb 2006
[ Parent ]

Governor of Massachusetts

We have a leadership vacuum at the top of every political spectrum that matters. While I commend much of the commentary, my grist is with Mitt Romney, and his opposition to Cape Wind, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, loss of Doug Foy as head of the Office of Commonwealth Development and related issues. That's why in 2006, I joined the Democratic Caucuses and became delegate, in support of Deval Patrick. We need a Governor that supports Cape Wind and will have that in Deval. Get active, get political, vote!

by arkmundi at 1:22 PM on 28 Feb 2006

Big money

Cape Wind is serving as a locus for big bribes against offshore wind power.

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:22 AM on 02 Mar 2006

Tradeoffs are a fact of life, boys...

Look, obviously the Cape Wind project involves tradeoffs. But I would argue that we have to look at the big picture here. The US is waaaaaay behind Europe when it comes to making use of alternative energy. Several european countries have their own offshore windfarms and have not found that migratory birds and other sea-life have been severely affected. A successful offshore windfarm project in the U.S. could pave the way for other large-scale alternative energy ventures in the future. Its existance would represent a new era for the U.S., one in which we actually pay attention to global warming, a far greater threat to this planet than a couple of dead birds.

by quieterhue at 10:09 AM on 08 Mar 2006

Saving Cape Wind in Congress: You Can Help

I like the robust debate displayed here in this comment section. With all the questions raised, I agree with Bill that Global Warming trumps other concerns, and point out as he does that some of these are moot, like the danger to shipping or commercial fishers, due to the shallow waters.

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.

Amy Gregory GreenpeaceUSA

by Amy Gregory at 10:18 AM on 09 Mar 2006

Per person

The Cape Wind project will take up 24 square miles to possibly produce energy equivalent to 75% of that used on the cape and islands. That's about 220,000 people. So it requires a square mile to produce the amount of energy used by fewer than 7,000 people, or about an acre to produce the energy used by 10 people.

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.

by ericr at 3:00 PM on 09 Mar 2006

Wind Power

While wind power is certainly not a cure-all for our climate/energy problems, I think one need only look at previous succesful projects to show wind's effectiveness at providing cheap, reliable, clean energy.

Amy Gregory GreenpeaceUSA

by Amy Gregory at 8:13 AM on 13 Mar 2006
[ Parent ]

More in response to ericr "Per Person"

You don't have all the facts right. The statistic detailing 75% of the Cape's energy is an average. This number accounts for the fact that the wind farm will not be running at peak capacity all of the time. The correct energy output for the wind farm is 454 MW at peak energy output (when all wind turbines are turning at peak capacity). The average energy output of the wind farm will be 170 MW. It is 170 MW that is 75% of the Cape and Islands energy needs. Cape Wind will provide clean, renewable energy capable of replacing each year: 113 million gallons of oil or 570,000 tons of coal, or 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Cape Wind will offset dirty fossil fuel sources with clean reliable energy.

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.

Amy Gregory GreenpeaceUSA

by Amy Gregory at 11:51 AM on 13 Mar 2006

Averages

It is "Clear Sky" Clarence who does not seem to grasp the implication of the average output. The wind speed varies from minute to minute, and the resulting variable output from the turbines must be continually balanced by other sources under grid management control. Those balancing stations will continue to burn fuel as their output is ramped up and down to accommodate the output from Cape Wind. The more frequent ramping will cause them to burn fuel inefficiently, increasing emissions even as fuel use may be reduced at some plants.

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.

by ericr at 6:56 AM on 14 Mar 2006

"Enormous benefits"

Cape Wind would be connected to the New England grid, so it is misleading to describe its projected average output of 170 MW only in terms of the cape and islands. That output would represent 0.5% of the New England's total capacity or about 0.75% of its peak load. Accepting for the moment the assumption that wind power can make any contribution at all, how many such 24-square-mile power plants does Greenpeace have in mind to make a significant contribution to the RGGI? How many 24-square-mile plants would be needed just to keep up with a projected 2% annual growth in demand? Why so much emphasis on an obviously marginal, but sprawling and intrusive, part of any solution, remembering also that electricity generation is only a fraction of the source of greenhouse gas emissions. The rising cost of gasoline and heating oil is already probably doing more for the air than a dozen Cape Wind project could ever hope to do.

by ericr at 8:22 AM on 14 Mar 2006

Eric

Look how far the debate has moved in these last few months. It has moved past your main anti-wind power arguments. Are you against small home based wind installations also?

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?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:00 AM on 14 Mar 2006
[ Parent ]

Some articles on Cape Wind and Wind energy

Clearly, ericr and I disagree on Cape Wind.
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

Amy Gregory GreenpeaceUSA

by Amy Gregory at 11:10 AM on 14 Mar 2006

Amazng

Are you for trashing the seascape, endangering birds, and disrupting marine mammals for at best a fraction of a percent of the region's electricity, that will at best displace an even smaller fraction of emissions?

by ericr at 2:10 PM on 14 Mar 2006

Cape Wind controversy

Given the huge boon to our power infrastructure represented by the addition of windpower, I do not understand why proponents of wind turbines have not joined forces with developers of tide-harnessing generators to find a way to use both in conjunction to get a bird-safe and air-safe method of producing electric power. The physics are so similar (movement of a mass of wind or water affecting a stationary object and using that effect to generate power) that I fail to see how working together would do anything but help...

by greymoon at 11:31 AM on 09 May 2006

Sea Shepherd opposes Cape Wind

Serious hardcore defenders of the planet have no use for Cape Wind:
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.

by ed abbey at 1:51 PM on 22 Jun 2006

sacrifice (privatize) the commons?

But it's for the public good, so it's not the same. Birds? I do believe that birds fly parallel to the land masses, and the winds are perpendicular, so that the blades will be spinning parallel to the birds flight (probably reducing the chances of bird kills). Aesthetics? That's a gray area, since I know several people that have seen the windmills (including myself) that think they are appealing. It seems to me that there are some that don't like the way they look. Navigation? You mean I have to look where I'm steering? Pshaw, that means I can't drink...

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.

by atreyger at 4:17 PM on 22 Jun 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge