Why hasn't Kerry come out in support of Cape Wind?

[KaraokeKarlton]

Kennedy is opposed to it, as are many of the so-called "environmentalists" from Mass. They say they like the idea of renewable energy and wind power, as long as it isn't in their backyard and doesn't "ruin their views" on the Cape and Martha's Vineyard. If Kerry truly is an environmentalist he would strongly support Cape Wind. Why hasn't he?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KaraokeKarlton]

2. Environmental impact statement?

That's kind of silly. I mean, wind power is clean. The project would provide 75% of the power for the area. It would reduce the need for unclean power. The fight is over the views of the wealthy. This would be GOOD for the environment, not bad for it. This "enviornmental impact statement" sounds like a cop out to me. If you support clean, renewable energy, then you support projects like this. If you don't support them just because they are in your back yard, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. It will be interesting to see if Kerry chooses clean, renewable energy over the Massachussetts elite. His choice will speak volumes about whose side he's on.

[papau]

4. 30+ miles by 5+ miles over commercial fishing public land -400 feet tall

Seems like a theft of public land already being used by others - or least one could see it that way. Imagine it closer to shore of Cape Code National Seashore - why these schoals? - why not south east of the islands further from shore?

[KaraokeKarlton]

6. It won't hurt fishing

In fact, it might actually help fishing. You see, the bases of the towers would act as a sort of "reef" that would have vegetation (seaweed) growing all around the towers. That would provide food for fish and a more plentiful supply. I understand this because I grew up in a fishing community in Maine. I still have relatives who fish. This isn't about fishing, it's about rich people worrying that the value of their property will go down due to "unsightly" towers.

[Fabio]

19. What are you talking about?

Wont hurt fishing?
Of course it will. Fishing is an industry on the Atlantic. Trawlers, lobstermen and civilians all use the area. Trawlers would be finished in the sound - destroying their lifestyle. And, maybe you've never been to the Cape - but navigation in the area would be made much much harder because its a very foggy area. 500' foot towers every few hundred yards would be really helpful to navigation, eh?


This post is clear flame bait.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Very helpful to navigation.

They would all have navigational flashers on them.

[Fabio]

22. Fog = Cape

Navigation flashers dont help in the fog.
As for a radar reflector, well, most boats under 35' dont have radar. Give me a break. I have a boat IN THE WATER ON THE CAPE. I feel pretty solid on this.

[KaraokeKarlton]

30. Those lights most certainly DO show in the fog

I grew up in one of the foggiest places in the country. It's foggy EVERY day there. There are communication towers across the bay and even in the worst fog the red lights flash clear as can be. Just 1/4 of a mile east of those towers is open ocean.

[Fabio]

34. So are you suggesting

that putting big lights on 500 windmills is going to make the environment better?

[KaraokeKarlton]

37. 500? It's not that many and you know it.

It was a hundred and something. Since when is renewable energy a bad thing? Wait! I know the answer to that...when it's in your back yard and ruins your ocean view!

[Fabio]

39. Actually

the number to be installed is around 150. But unless you are suggesting that the lights are not going to be unidirectional, than you'll need four lights per mast for it to be navigationally safe.

Of course, you might be suggesting that the lights rotate, like on a lighthouse. But of course, 150 lighthouses visible through pea soup fog would have to be pretty bright. And that would be a whole hell of a lot like pollution.

Why dont you let the EPA release its statement? Are you familiar with windfarms? Do you know that lots of birds get killed by them? Or that the Nantucket sound is on the migratory path for a lot of birds? Or do you want to pretend that they are beneficial to their immediate environment.

Keep attacking. It's funny. Everyone here on Nantucket who has an environmental bone in their body has mixed feelings. Would it be nice to be a leader in sustainable energy? Yes. Are the costs to having it the Nantucket Sound to high? TBD.

Its a lot like putting a windfarm in the middle of a national park, you know.

[KaraokeKarlton]

43. I see no problem with windfarms

If it helps wean the US of oil and fossil fuels it's all good to me. Put them up all over the place. Put them right in my back yard. I think they look cool.

[Fabio]

45. your entitled to your opinion.

you should lead the effort to have them installed at Stowe.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. As a boater...

There is no way that obstructions will be placed in the water without navigational aids.

[Fabio]

48. no one is arguing that.

the issue is essentially whether having 150 lighted obstructions constitutes a form of pollution. These power generators are to be in close proximity -- the nantucket sound is not that large. Serious question - have you ever been in a boating environment with 150 massive obstructions in it? As busy as the nantucket sound in August? On a foggy day?

THe above poster is acting like they wont be a navigation hazard.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Would it be pollution if it was in the middle of Wyoming?

Is the "eye pollution" that it represents greater than the "atmospheric" pollution that it replaces?


:shrug:

That's what democracies are set up for. To decide questions like these.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. It depends on where in Wyoming they put it.

Grist: Where do you stand on the Cape Cod wind farm controversy in your own state?

Kerry: I think we need a siting process. I think there has to be a legitimate siting agreement and we have to wait and see what the environmental impact statement suggests.

Grist: So are you undecided?

Kerry: No. I am generically in favor of wind power but I want to know whether this is the right place. There is a lot of opposition, obviously, a lot of people concerned about it. What's the impact going to be on the ecosystem? I want to know. I think we have to have a clear process by which we're going to get these things sited. I don't think we can let everyone run around plunking (wind farms) down wherever they want.
http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/kerry092303.asp

Saying you think it is only an issue of 'eye pollution' just shows you haven't done your homework:

Pro and Con on the Cape Wind project:
PRO: http://www.capewind.org/
CON: http://www.saveoursound.org/

[KaraokeKarlton]

53. I'm all for it

If there's enough wind to make it worthwhile, put them in Stowe.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Hell,

put it on my roof!


If it's a choice between War and a propeller on my roof....

[Fabio]

60. The choice in not A or B

It's not solely a choice of Wind farm in Nantucket Sound or no wind farms. That's simplistic and a disservice to all the people who live there.

The question has always been if the sight is appropriate. Or, are there less obtrusive places to do it (ie on the continental shelf south of nantucket).

[KaraokeKarlton]

29. It wouldn't hurt trawlers

They just wouldn't be able to trawl along the strip where the towers were. Trawlers also go further out than where the towers would be. If they didn't they'd destroy all the lobster fishermans pots (traps). Navigation wouldn't be an issue because there would be lights on the towers just like are on any other towers. You do that for planes anyhow so they don't crash into them. Boats see lights through the fog. If they don't crash into the buoy markers that are often metal they wouldn't crash into the towers. Out of curiosity, do you live by the ocean? Did you grow up in a family that made it's living off the sea? I did. Lobster, weirs, dragging for scallops, hand-lining...I am quite familiar with ocean fishing.

[Fabio]

35. Yes. I did grow up by the ocean.

As a matter of fact, I am writing to you from Nantucket Island. Right now, I am looking at my boat that is out on the sound. It's a nice boat -- I fish from it regularly -- bluefish, stripers. I also dive off it for lobster. I dont use pots. They bother me.

Do you make your living of the sea....in vermont?

[KaraokeKarlton]

41. I am from Maine and grew up in "downeast" Maine.

I come from a long line of boat builders and fishermen. You aren't a commercial fisherman, you are clearly a sport fisherman simply based on the type of fish you listed. If you were a commercial fisherman you would list other fish. And lobster fishermen don't "dive" for lobster. They have traps, knit their own heads and bait bags, fill said bait bags with rotten, greasy, putrid dead herring and go out every day and haul those traps.

[Fabio]

44. hey smart alec

I didnt claim to be a commercial fisherman. And dont get righteous to me about what your family does or doesn't do. I am aware of what commerical fisherman fish for. I also am familiar with the fact that lobster are generally caught in pots, which is why I referenced the fact that I dive and dont like pots. If you have ever been diving in the NE (which you may have) you'd know that in areas where lobster pots are prevelant, the ocean floor is littered with ones that have lost their rope and buoy. In them, you'll see lots of lobsters, spider crabs and other things waiting around to die. That's why i dont particularly like them.

But, if you are a commercial fisherman, or related to one, you must know that your claim that anything but the brightest lights are visible through fog is false. If you lived in Hyannis, and 150, or 500, lights were shining into your window every day, would you have a bone to pick?

JK is a resident of Nantucket. So am I. Nantucketers have the LEAST to worry about from Cape Wind. We are 20 miles from the Cape, beyond visual range because of the curve of the earth.

The fact of the matter is that the windfarm will not have active lighting of the type you are discussing. Rather, the masts will have reflecters for radar and light. They will be a navigation hazard.

[KaraokeKarlton]

55. Dive in the northern Atlantic?

I'd rather not freeze my ass off, thanks. If you stay in the water for more than about 20 minutes where I'm from you risk getting hypothermia. The only people who dive are equipped with special wet suits and protective gear. Usually they dive for sea urchins or to help the scallop draggers once in awhile during the winter. In most cases, the traps you see on the bottom of the ocean are from dumb asses cutting the lines. A few radical animal rights folks do this sort of thing...protecting the lobsters and all. I agree that it's an awful thing. Sometimes it's a storm but usually the lines are cut.

Listen, with the height of the wind towers, they would be lit well so planes didn't crash into them. There would be red lights on them that would be easily visible even through the worst possible fog. Why do I know this? Because I grew up in a town that had 26 1000 foot towers that secure Low Frequency cables for military communication. The fog was normally so thick that you couldn't even see a foot in front of you while driving. The only thing that kept people ON the road during the fog was the fact that there was only one road leading from town to modern conveniences and the locals memorized every twist and turn to the point you could practicly drive it with your eyes closed. The tower lights showed up clear as day. They didn't hinder people from sleeping or star gazing, either. In fact, most people enjoyed the lights. It was sort of like Christmas 12 months a year. It was pretty to look at in the dark with the flashing red lights. From about 2 miles away, they looked like red stars. During the daytime, you hardly saw the lights at all, and although the towers were visible, they were hardly an eyesore. When we drove the two hours to the mall and was driving home, we'd spot the tower lights about 40 miles before we got home in the night sky. You could hardly see them, but it was like a beacon bringing the sea captain in from a long journey. So, no, I wouldn't have a "bone to pick". The wind farm towers would be 6 miles from land. I was 2 miles from the flashing lights on the 1000 foot towers and they didn't "shine in the windows" at all. The lights don't glare. They are powerful, but not obtrusive. It's hard to explain, but they aren't at all what you're imagining them to be.

And again, they will HAVE to have lights for airplanes to see them. Any tower over a certain height MUST have adequate lights.

[Fabio]

58. FYI

1. I've dived in Maine many times. It has the best diving in the NE because the water is much clearer and the rock bottom supports a much different ecosystem than lots of the rest of the predominantly sandy North Atlantic sea shore. People like myself use dry suit to dive in the area. It's pretty much standard equipment for any diver North of New Jersey.


N2. antucket used to have a windfarm on the island itself. I am pretty familiar with them. When I was 10, I thought they looked pretty cool. I am not sure 150 of them in the sound is the way to go, though.

[KaraokeKarlton]

66. The reason it's being propsed there

is because there is damn good wind there. I'm all for doing the various studies on the project, but I find it so hypocritical to see some supposed "environmental" democrats who oppose it because they think it will ruin their view. That's so shallow when you consider how important it is to wean this country off the fossil fuels as much as possible. The wind farms won't work everywhere because there's not enough steady wind. This is one of the best areas to test it out so progress can be made toward renewable energy. And I still like those 1000 foot towers with the red lights as an adult. Tourists to the area are just fascinated by them.

[Fabio]

70. Anyone who reads...

any of your preceding posts will see that you are attacking Kerry. Yet he has neither opposed nor advocated Cape Wind. Is waiting for 'the science' as Dr. Dean would say (and has over and over on a number of issues) so wrong?

Hmmm.

[Nicholas_J]

24. Kennedy does not support it

Because no one has looked at the possible environmental damage from construction towers in such an area, which is already losing to erosion. Anyone who has done any sort of construction in such areas knows that sinking support pylons into the ground at such stops can further the loss of beach line. (and result in complete collapse of thr towers.) I have BUILT houses and other structure in similar locations in the nortestern U.S. and those types of structures can no longer be build in many areas due to the fact that they require sinking of piers, pylons or other foundattions that weaken the structual integrity of the land/sea margin.

[DJcairo]

25. Why did Dean stand with Bush in support of shipping Nuke waste to Texas?

[KaraokeKarlton]

32. It worked just fine with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge

I didn't realize you were an underwater construction expert. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. No need to have environmental review of seaside building projects --

after all "it worked just fine with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge." :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Yeah, let's just toss out the idea of environmental impact statements

for any project that 'sounds green'. Why bother to look at the details or substance of the project? Those aren't important, right?

It's that kind of reasoning that brings us initiatives like 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests'.

[elfin]

3. Because - "all poitics are local" eom

[clar]

5. I think this is an unfair attack

and I say this as a Dean supporter. Here in the NE Kingdom, there's a big push towards wind power, with plans to put the towers on some of our most beautiful peaks. I'm deeply conflicted about the matter and want to know far more about the impact- not just environmentally but economocically before I'm on board. I feel the same way about Nantucket Sound, an area I have long loved. And I don't have a mansion or even a shack there. I know we need alternate power sources and I'm willing to make some sacrifices, but I want to know that benefits outweigh the costs. I want to add that Kerry's environmental record is a stellar one. I admire it deeply.

[molly]

7. Thankyou for this!

Kerry is a very careful man. He has a a logical mind that weighs all sides of issues before making difficult decisions.

[KaraokeKarlton]

9. And Dean isn't?

Please...

[ModerateMiddle]

14. Logic 101

A is true

does not equal

B is not true.

"Before you get your knickers in a twist..."

[clar]

11. You're more than welcome, Molly

I call 'em how I see 'em, regardless of my candidate preference. I'm happy to say good things about any of our candidates, whenever I honestly can!

[KaraokeKarlton]

8. I think it's fair

Finding sources for alternative energy isn't going to be painless, but it's necessary. As long as people value their views and own back yard over the best interest of the country, they aren't helping things any. Sacrifices must be made, and if politicians aren't willing to make them and set an example, how can they expect average Americans to be willing to make them?

[Meshuga]

10. You guys are looking for anything...

to pick on Kerry. Why not just bring up his vote on Iraq a million times again? I know, you need something new...

[KaraokeKarlton]

12. But it's okay to criticize Dean

for showing balance and fairness on the environment? Why, exactly, is it okay for Kerry supporters to complain about Dean using articles written by non-Democrats who vote 3rd party and it's wrong for me to ask why Kerry hasn't supported Cape Wind if he's on record of supporting renewable energy? I see no difference. Kerry supporters claim that Kerry is so much better than Dean on the environment, so it's curious to me why Kerry isn't being held to a higher standard by his own supporters. I mean, it doesn't matter that Vermont has some of the toughest environmental standards in the country or that Dean protected hundreds of thousands of acres from ever being developed, or that in Vermont car dealers HAVE to offer environmentally friendly cars for those who want them, or that much of the state has mandatory recycling. None of that appears to matter because Dean tried to also be fair to the people who live in Vermont and wanted good jobs from companies like IBM. Why is Kerry considering the residents of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket any different? Perhaps simply because you support Kerry over Dean?

[10digits]

15. Angry toddlers support dean.

Whine and wail. Of course dean is fair and balanced just like unho.

[ModerateMiddle]

13. this is the corollary to

"Howard Dean can do no wrong". It's called "John Kerry can do no right."

[George_Bonanza]

61. lol

[cprise]

26. Kinda weird seeing that with a Carter avatar. n/t

.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. as if pilots (JFK Jr.) don't have enough problems landing on the Vineyard

I'd say there are many reasons this is a bad location.

[ModerateMiddle]

17. Because the impact study isn't complete

Unlike some candidates, Kerry likes to have the facts IN before he makes his decision.

[Fabio]

18. Why

would he necessarily support Cape Wind if he were a strong environmentalist? I live off the Cape in the summer and am familiar with the issue. It's not a slam dunk by any means. Not only is the Environmental Impact Assessment not complete, but there are other social costs that need to be evaluated. Keep in mind, the dominant industry on the Cape is tourism. If Cape Wind hurts the local economy by making the area less desirable, the local tax base would suffer -- hurting the local environment in ways well beyond a disturbed site line.

I think you bring this up because you want to force the issue. Where is Howard Dean's statement on Cape Wind, btw?

[DrFunkenstein]

21. This Argument Is Truly Worthy of You, Karoake

Good to see you are listening to the GOP talking points. As a Dean fan, do you really want to get into a NIMBY argument? I thought we had slapped you guys around enough over Yucca for you to get the message.

Dean may have been anti-resolution, but you really shouldn't get into environmental comparisons between the two candidates. It would be bad.

And, for the record, there are several issues you are ignoring in order to win a cheap point, most of which have been mentioned already. I know that Dean argues through convenient omissions, but that doesn't mean you have to.

[KaraokeKarlton]

33. Funky my dear, it's like this...

Dean is NOT bad on the environment. He's done some great things in my state. Frankly, I'm sick of the lies constantly being posted about my candidate by some of the people who support your candidate. We all know that Greens and others who support 3rd party candidates for president like to attack good politicians to serve their own interests. These kinds of people are the ones writing these article your pals keep using to try to paint Dean as something he isn't. It's very uncool and this thread was my way of telling those naughty Kerry supporters that what I did in this thread is exactly what they are doing to my candidate...and they think it's okay. I say it isn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. "when Dean took office there were 36% more small farmers in Vermont"

His record, however, shows just the opposite. Remember, when Dean took office there were 36 percent more small farmers in Vermont; there were no Wal-Marts, no Taft Corners big boxes, and no 100,000-hen mega-farms. Sprawl was not the issue du jour.

Interestingly, Dean told the Free Press last week that he wished the rest of the country was "more like Vermont." But it seems he's allowed Vermont to become more like the rest of the country.

Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of the Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she thinks it's hardly worth putting up a fight anymore.

"Under Dean the Act 250 process and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way," Kaplan charges. "Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers."

Kaplan points to the "Environmental Board purge" in the mid-'90s that enabled the governor to set a pro-development tone. In 1993, the Board issued an Act 250 permit to C Grocers in Brattleboro with conditions that restricted the diesel emissions from its heavy truck traffic. After C execs cried foul and threatened to move to New Hampshire, Dean broke gubernatorial precedent by publicly criticizing the Environmental Board for issuing what he called a "non-permit."

A year after receiving their public rebuke from Dean, four of the Environmental Board members, including the chair, were up for reappointment. With not-so-subtle clues from Dean that he didn't approve of the Board's political direction, the Republican majority in the state senate shot down every one of their appointments, thus dramatically changing both the structure and climate of the Board.

"After the post-C&S purge," says Kaplan, "the burden of proof for Act 250 permits switched from being on the applicants - where it's supposed to be - to being on the environmentalists. That's why 98 percent of the permit requests are approved and only 20 percent ever have hearings."
http://www.vtce.org/deanenvironmentomya.html

[KaraokeKarlton]

42. Which of the two or three Walmarts in VT are you talking about?

You talk like we've got a million of them. Seeing as most towns don't have any clothing stores or locally owned shops that sell what Vermonters need, Walmart didn't have harm anything here, they helped.
Oh, and where are your links? Oh wait, I forgot, you're reciting what you read from the Green Party...nevermind.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. The Greens have no credibility as advocates for the environment?

OK

I guess the person you are attacking is "Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of the Environmental Board"?

What grudge does she hold against Dean?

[KaraokeKarlton]

57. Not when they try to discredit good Democrats because they

support voting for Nader so Bush will win.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. So what is the grudge

that is motivating Stephanie Kaplan to say these things about Dean? I can think of one possible motivation for her commments: she cares about the environment. You are implying there is some more sinister motive involved. What is it?

[KaraokeKarlton]

67. You mean the Stephanie Kaplan that supports Kerry?

Seeing as Dean stole Kerry's "front runner" status, it doesn't surprise me that she hates Dean. She has an axe to grind.

[DrFunkenstein]

63. Where Is Sierra Club or LCV?

Why aren't they singing hymns to Dean the Beneficent? Why didn't the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club EVER endorse Dean, even when he was endangered by his civil unions in 2000? Why did they repeatedly refuse to endorse him?

[sandnsea]

23. They haven't even chosen a site

15 sites are being considered. Impact statements need to be completed. Birds and marine life can be harmed by windmills. There really isn't anything to come out in support of yet.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Kerry answers your question:

Grist: Where do you stand on the Cape Cod wind farm controversy in your own state?

Kerry: I think we need a siting process. I think there has to be a legitimate siting agreement and we have to wait and see what the environmental impact statement suggests.

Grist: So are you undecided?

Kerry: No. I am generically in favor of wind power but I want to know whether this is the right place. There is a lot of opposition, obviously, a lot of people concerned about it. What's the impact going to be on the ecosystem? I want to know. I think we have to have a clear process by which we're going to get these things sited. I don't think we can let everyone run around plunking (wind farms) down wherever they want.
http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/kerry092303.asp

Pro and Con on the Cape Wind project:
PRO: http://www.capewind.org/
CON: http://www.saveoursound.org/

[Duder]

31. Perhaps it's more profitable to wait...

Cape Wind CEO plans Kerry benefit
By JACK COLEMAN

The developer of the proposed offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound will help raise money next month for U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Democratic candidate for president who could be central in the debate over the project.

Cape Wind Associates of Yarmouth and Boston wants to build 130 wind turbines near the Barnstable and Yarmouth coastline, a proposal that has drawn sharp criticism from some local residents and politicians such as U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., and state Attorney General Thomas Reilly.

Kerry has not taken a position on the wind farm proposal.

In an effort to boost Kerry's presidential prospects, James Gordon, the president and CEO of Cape Wind, will host a fund-raiser for Kerry on April 22 in the library and dining room of the Belvedere Residential Condominiums in Boston's Back Bay.

http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/capewind4.htm

......................................

Gordon declined to speculate on Kerry’s stance on the project. “I’m convinced, frankly, that when public officials and legislators see the results of Cape Wind’s environmental impact statement, they’re going to support the project,” he said.

In addition to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Conservation Law Foundation and Friends of the Earth have spoken favorably of the project. Even some commercial competitors have voiced their support.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/kerry.aspx

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Kerry is accepting money from proponents of alternative energy?

Serious charge. We certainly wouldn't want our President 'in bed' with the wind-power barons.

And for him to accept these campaign contributions, but still say the decision should be based on science - reprehensible!

[PAMod]

52. Probably nothing, but a bad idea to accept money from them...

just in case he should happen to vote in favor of their project.

The timing isn't very good, is it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Kerry certainly won't be getting any money from the nuclear industry

or the deregulation crowd. I guess wind and solar power advocates are the best he can hope for. Kerry has also never accepted PAC money in his senate races. Besides as Kerry says in the Grist Interview "You have to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may."

But there is really no danger of being accused of influence peddling, as Kerry has no vote to make or influence in this decision whatsoever. It's just going through the normal environmental and siting review that any development does. And he's being lobbied by both sides to 'weigh in' as one of the MA senators. The only reason it is even raised as an issue is that it is the closest thing to an appearance of insensitivity on the environment that his opponents can come up with. So it is what they pull out to distract you from Kerry's real environmental record.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. n/t

Posted in the wrong place...

[George_Bonanza]

62. Cape Wind is far from perfect

I haven't visited the "Pro" site yet, but saveoursound.com has provided facts that Cape Wind is far from an ideal "Green" project. To me, it sounds more like industrializing the ocean, which sounds very anti-green. The lack of efficiency and consumption of oil for powerups make these windmills pretty flawed. I read that the efficiency is only at 30-40%, and that the energy produced from it wouldn't even provide 1% of the energy needed in the NE area. Pretty bad return for desecrating one of the pristine nature sites in America.

[NNadir]

65. No form of energy is more efficient.

No form of energy is much more efficient than 40%. It has to do with the second law of thermodyamics.

[George_Bonanza]

68. Perhaps, but wind isn't always constant

I'm all for wind power, and I'm sure Kerry is to. But the truth is that Cape Wind is not a foolproof plan. It does have some questions to be answered, and Kerry is seeking those. You shouldn't just jump into a Green issue just because it's Green. As I said, I think it's like industrializing the ocean, so we have to be careful about it.

[NNadir]

64. Apparently wind power faces the very same problem as nuclear: NIMBY.

I think it is really grasping for straws, especially in the Age of Bush, to oppose this project. The only argument against this wind field is NIMBY.

Personally, I don't have an aesthetic problem wind Windmills. I'm sure they'll grow on people, as millions of postcards and other depictions of Holland show.

There are only three forms of safe and clean energy available today: Geothermal, solar (of which wind is a form), and nuclear energy. Environmentalists should support the reasonable implementation of any of these three forms of energy and oppose all others (drilling ANWR for instance). Cape Wind's proposal is reasonable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Every developer cries NIMBY when their proposals are questioned

by the people who have to live with them. They told us here in Montana we were NIMBY-ists to fight cyanide heap leach mining. Not many folks from Mass. or Florida were involved in this effort. It is always the neighbors who are most concerned with the neighborhood.

It's clear you haven't done any research on this particular development if you say the only argument against it is NIMBY.

Pro and Con on the Cape Wind project:
PRO: http://www.capewind.org/
CON: http://www.saveoursound.org/

And you go on to include nuclear as one of the 'safe and clean' forms of energy available? Well, I guess that subject would be enough for a thread of it's own...

[NNadir]

71. Most NIMBY types raise specious objections that are indifferent to anyone

not living in their enclave.

According to Science magazine (Luis Cifuentes, Victor H. Borja-Aburo, Nelson Gouviea, George Thurstson, and Devra Lee Davis, Science, Vol. 293, pp1257-1259 August 17, 2001) over 40,000 persons are killed annually by the effects of air pollution in just four cities: Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Santiago, and New York.

Were wind fields to displace fossil fuels, it is very doubtful that these windfields will kill anyone, but even if one or two or even people are killed in a boating accident involving the towers in Nantucket Sound, that still means 39,990 or so saved lives. (The same thing is true of the much discussed nuclear waste "crisis". No one in the United States has been killed by commercial nuclear waste, though you'd swear from the media that deaths numbered in the millions.) Even if there were a 100% surplus of electrical energy in New England, it will still be a good idea to build these wind fields, as they will save human lives, prevent the destruction of fisheries destroyed by coal ash and oil spills, reduce mercury and uranium pollution (from coal fly ash), the necessity for vicious and unjustifiable wars (as in Iraq) etc, etc. I'm sorry, but the contention that there may be some impact on fishing and boating in Nantucket sound seems pretty trivial.

This wind plant by the way has nothing to do with cyanide in Montana. You are engaging in the "Guilt by Association" logical fallacy, trying to include miners and windfield developers under the general rubric of "developers." It is, to hammer the word home again, "specious" to do so. I suggest you review the rules of critical thinking in argumentation. http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/

Are windfields 100% safe and clean, 100% environmentally benign? Absolutely not. Are they cleaner and safer than their alternatives? Absolutely.

John Kerry should support them. So, for that matter, should Ted Kennedy.

Will they hurt fishing in Nantucket Sound? Possibly (though its certainly not proven that they will). Will there building serve to save habitats including fish and birds worldwide? Absolutely.