Strange bedfellows indeed: We at BMG are four-square with our Differently-Winged friends at Hub Politics in our disgust with the following Congressmen, who have indicated their support for the provision that would allow Mitt Romney (or Kerry Healey, or Tom Reilly) to put the kibosh on Cape Wind: Ed Markey, William Delahunt, Barney Frank, Richard Neal, and as seems likely, Mike Capuano.
Quoth the sages of Beverly:
For all the Democrats’ posturing about being pro-environment and for clean energy and all things green, when it comes to practicing what they preach, Massachusetts Democrats certainly don’t.
What can I say? They’re absolutely right. This issue is an environmental gut-check for Democrats, and they’re failing, spectacularly. We are running out of time to move to clean, renewable energy. The project has passed all of the significant environmental hurdles it’s encountered, and yet somehow it’s not good enough. And yet, the Cape endures the worst air in the state; the region needs the energy; and global warming continues at a ferocious pace.
Jim Hansen, former top climatologist at NASA, says we’ve got maybe ten years before climate change is irrevocable, with likely catastrophic consequences. The time for Cape Wind is now — heck, twenty years ago. Our congressmen should be ashamed of this pathetic NIMBY dithering.
Yes, I saw that article in the Globe yesterday and sent my Congressman an angry letter.
All the owners of high-priced coastal property down there who don’t want a wind farm impeding their view should be allowed have their way. Just tell us where on the Vineyard and Nantucket we can put a coal-burning power plant, and the problem will be solved.
As with so many issues that become politicized, Cape Wind has been reduced to single yes/no question and are asked in a vaccuum. In context, I think it’s a bit of a red herring.
<
p>
Few people would argue that from an aesthetic perspective, installing 130 wind turbines will do anything but uglify the sound. We may decide this is a worthy sacrifice in exchange for cleaner, cheaper and more plentiful energy, but people who will have to look at it every day for the rest of their lives (a group that doesn’t include me) may feel differently. This fact alone would incline me to exhaust (no pun intended) all other energy-related options before constructing something permanent on the landscape.
<
p>
Regarding cleaner air: we can start doing that today by mandating more fuel-efficient cars, requiring state energy plants to install & maintain cleaner equipment, revoking the taxpayer susbsidies to energy companies from the 1998 deregulation, and investing in public transportation.
<
p>
Heck, I recall reading about a study during the debate about ANWAR showing that the US could conserve more oil than exists in ANWAR simply by rotating auto tires more regularly.
<
p>
So why aren’t all the people presently taking elected leaders to task for Cape Wind not advocating as loudly and regularly for these low-cost and no-cost initiatives?
<
p>
My sense is that much of the disproportionate enthusiasm for Cape Wind stems from the very American consumer mindset that loves to believe you can buy your way out of sacrifices, difficult choices and hard work by purchasing some seemingly-magic, new hi-tech device. And I say this not to dismiss wind power, but as someone who supports re-allocating three-fourths of the Star Wars Missile Shield budget into alternative energy research & implementation including wind power.
<
p>
But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that additional kilowatts generated by Cape Wind will eliminate the polluted air still being generated by automobiles and the Fithy Five (is it six now?) energy plants located in the Commonwealth. We could end pollution from the latter tomorrow –if the Governor and legislature simply gave the order.
<
p>
If you’re really adamant about cleaner air, regulating these plants and ending the taxpayer subsdies that allow them to continue business-as-usual shoud be priority number one. Cape Wind would be nice, but it’s a very long-term solution to our immediate air quality and energy needs. I am far less outraged by resistance to Cape Wind (even for pure nimby reasons) than I am resistance to forcing our power plants to operate cleanly and subsidy-free.
I agree with you that we can do a lot right now to start improving air quality and reduce harmful emissions. However, you seem to suggest we don’t need to do something like Cape Wind right now because there are other ways we can reduce our emissions. I think the facts are such that we need to do as many things we can as quickly as we can in order to really address the breadth of the problem. Thus sacraficing Cape Wind for other projects doesn’t make sense.
<
p>
As for the aesthetic argument I tend to agree that we shouldn’t make light of this idea. However, from what I have read, which could be wrong, due to the distance of the project one could hold his or her hand up and block the view of the entire project. If this is true I really can’t see the view totally destroyed.
I’m suggesting first things first, not necessarily doing one instead of the other.
<
p>
If we require more fuel-efficient cars and cleaner standards for existing power plants, end taxpayer subsidies of energy corporations, and practice fuel-efficiency by doing things like rotating tires, we can have a more direct and immediate impact on the things people say motivate their support for Cape Wind: reducing air pollution, conserving fuel, and reducing energy costs to consumers.
<
p>
All of these things can be legislated and implemented immediately. They require no new technology and no new costs. The cleaner standards for MA power plants and the state taxpayer subsidies of energy companies are entirely within the control of state government.
<
p>
Then we can decide how urgently we need a 130-unit wind farm in Nantucket Sound.
<
p>
I think the most compelling argument for implementing a wind farm here is the opporutnity to establish MA as a leader in alternative energy development, not the impact it would have on local energy consumption, cost and air quality.
I would hope that people would be more sophisticated in their viewpoints (and I don’t mean here) to suggest that raising issues about a specific project is the litmus test as to whether one is pro or con alternative energy, or wind power. As Patriot pointed out, I would also suggest there is bigger bang for the buck to be found elsewhere.
<
p>
An example would be found in the suggestion made in another thread that the state make the T free rather than cut the gas tax. I don’t think the T could handle much of an increase of ridership, but suspending that thought, how many cars would be off the road, saving how much oil, diminishing how many pollutants are in the air?
<
p>
If I’m for requiring automakers to increase average mileage by 10%, improving public transit, etc., but skeptical about a specific wind project, should my credentials about on the environment be questioned?
<
p>
Bill Delahunt wrote an Op-Ed in the Herald today on this- http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=138910&format=text While I don’t agree with everything he said, there are valid points to be made. I’m personally not bothered by the tax subsidies from the federal and state levels, often that is an incentive to make something beneficial happen. While BMG noted the irony of being on the same side of this issue as a conservative group, I wonder how those conservative groups feel about millions in government subsidies?
<
p>
I personally would rather see a process with competitive bidding, that maximizes the benefit for people on the Cape (me being one of them), under established guidelines for such projects. Cape Wind is not in any position to cry foul about how the game is played, having played the same game in the overall terrible Energy Bill the GOP pushed through.
My town has 5 wards and wanted to build a new school. The poorest ward, literally on the wrong “side of the tracks,” got the new school – but didn’t want it. Four wards voted for the school, one ward voted against it.
<
p>
Is it fair? No. Now, traffic is going to be a huge problem, the only park in the area is being destroyed and I’m sure childhood pranks will skyrocket, not to mention the nieghborhood has to deal with an ugly brick monstrosity. However, that’s how democracy works. There needed to be a new high school and that was the only place to put it.
<
p>
We need new energy, we need renewable energy. Cape Wind offers the chance to power 75% of Cape Cod through renewable energy. It’s energy that Massachusetts needs – and a plant we need to satisfy our own requirements of having a certain amount of energy in this state be renewable energy by a quickly approaching date.
<
p>
There are no environmental risks. The birds aren’t going to die. Indeed, it will be a boon to the environment, we’ll have one less coal plant.
<
p>
I’m sick and tired of this elitism. Just because Nantucket has hundreds of millionaires doesn’t mean they get to prevent this. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN.
<
p>
Furthermore, it won’t even greatly effect the view. The data is out there and most places, including Nantucket, shouldn’t even be able to see Cape Wind. The people who will see it will only see a thumb-print in the horizon.
<
p>
Enough is enough!
I live in Boston, earn working-class income, and have little personal concern about the aesthetic impact of this project; I don’t know a single soul on Nantucket, nor have I ever been there. Yet I’m still not convinced that the project is either a priority, the smartest way to spend our money, or the potential boon that all the cheerleaders insist it will be (e.g. “powering 75% of Cape Cod through renewable energy” sounds exaggerated).
<
p>
I don’t oppose the project; were it to go through, I wouldn’t be upset at all –certainly not like I was when our state government approved the 1998 energy company bailout that we are still paying for today. I don’t mind erring on the side of excess zeal for renewable energy for a change.
<
p>
But let’s not kid ourselves: the “elitists” in this debate are just as much the tiny minority of millionaires with a profit motive in this wind farm –no different from those elitists who personally profit from public subsidies of so-called alternative energy projects like “clean coal” (and no, I’m not equating the merits of wind power to clean coal).
<
p>
My concern is that elected leaders and misguided activists use these kind of high-profile expensive projects as justification to not act on the more substantive, consequential, and economical energy reforms we need to make. Let’s face it –it’s just easier and more fun to rally around building a gleaming new wind farm (and to aquire more taxpayer money for it) than to lobby for increased penalties for dirty power plants, better fuel standards or repeal of the 30% transition charge we currently pay NSTAR.
<
p>
So my challenge to all the hyperventilating wind farm advocates is: bring the same level of zealotry to the cost-free energy reforms we can make today –reforms that will have immediate environmental impact– as you do to the expensive energy reforms that cost money up-front and will take years to return any measurable benefit. Our collective enthusiasm will yield greater results if guided by common-sense prioritized energy reforms.
<
p>
Had you all been as vocal and enthusiastic 8 years ago about energy reform (when the corporate elitists defeated the ballot intitiative that would have stopped the disaterous dergulation), we might not be in such urgent need of an expensive wind farm today.
Few people would argue that from an aesthetic perspective, installing 130 wind turbines will do anything but uglify the sound.
<
p>
I would make that argument, on three counts:
1. I think the wind turbines are beautiful, and furthermore, like great outdoor sculpture, seem to enhance the natural beauty of their environment instead of working against it (like, say, a smokestack).
2. When you’re able to see them at all, they’ll appear tiny! Stick your arm out fully extended in front of you, and give a “thumbs up”. Now, look how big your thumbnail looks. The turbines will appear shorter than your thumbnail on the horizon. Additionally, they’ll be painted blue-grey, so if there’s any haze or fog, you won’t be able to distingusih them at all from the water or sky.
3. Oil spills, dark smoke, and air pollution uglify the sound. The windmills will serve to reduce the amount of all three of these things, thereby beautifying the sound.
<
p>
people who will have to look at it every day for the rest of their lives
<
p>
Folks in Salem have their lovely waterfront marred by a fossil fuel burning power plant. The same goes for folks in Southie and in countless other communities. Why should those at the Cape be afforded more “viewership” rights than the rest of us?
<
p>
This fact alone would incline me to exhaust (no pun intended) all other energy-related options before constructing something permanent on the landscape.
<
p>
Here’s the thing: we have. Wind turbines are tall, and there isn’t a single location in Massachusetts where one could be built and not be seen. Furthermore, the places where things are sufficiently windy — mountain peaks and off shore — almost always correspond with places that are less likely to contain large development, due to cost. So, given that there is no single green solution for Mass and given that solar, biomass, and geothermal can only generate a fraction of what wind can in our state, and given that Cape Wind will provide 75% of the power needed by the Cape, it seems clear to me that we have exhausted all other energy-related options.
<
p>
Regarding cleaner air: we can start doing that today by mandating more fuel-efficient cars, requiring state energy plants to install & maintain cleaner equipment, revoking the taxpayer susbsidies to energy companies from the 1998 deregulation, and investing in public transportation.
<
p>
If by “we”, you mean the Federal Government, you’re right. Now go convince the folks in Kansas to vote for Democrats. Most of the suggestions you mentioned are bound by Federal law, not state. In fact, that’s why a bunch of attorneys general have been sueing the Federal Government pushing for more enforcement. While transporation does account for a large chunk of air pollution, Massachusetts’ “Filthy Five” are doing more than their share, and the state has little authority to curb their nasty habits. Furthermore, the New England Power Grid is going to be pushed to its limits in the next few hot summer weekdays, possibly resulting in brownouts — brownouts that could be avoided if there were more generational capacity. And, as an added caveat, the peak plants are limited in how many hours they can generate power, so even if the wind isn’t blowing on the instant that demand is highest, the wind turbines will have helped by offsetting the peak plants at other times, thereby freeing those peak plants to peak during the surge in demand.
<
p>
Heck, I recall reading about a study during the debate about ANWAR showing that the US could conserve more oil than exists in ANWAR simply by rotating auto tires more regularly.
<
p>
It’s a strange claim. First of all, its the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. Secondly, we could conserve more oil than in ANWR if you personally stopped driving, given that you stopped driving for a gajillion years. My point is that without a timeframe, you’re comparing a rate with a quantity (like, say, comparing 55 MPH with 700 miles). It doesn’t make sense.
<
p>
As for conserving fuel, tUSA could instantly (and virtually for free) reduce gasoline consumption by 25% by (a) properly inflating our tires, and (b) reducing the speed limit on highways back to 55 mph. Don’t hold your breath though — the only time the Bush administration has asked any Americans to sacrifice for the good of the nation was when they (implicitly) asked soldiers’ families to buy body armor.
<
p>
So why aren’t all the people presently taking elected leaders to task for Cape Wind not advocating as loudly and regularly for these low-cost and no-cost initiatives?
<
p>
First of all, Cape Wind is a business. It’s not their job. Do we expect Exxon/Mobil to urge people to drive less frequently? Of course not. Secondly, conservation requires 300 million people to make conservation decisions hundres of time per day. Cape Wind requires a single (series of) decision(s), and then the impact (carbonless electricity) is permanent. I hope folks do conserve electricity, but as proven time and time again, the only virture is in cutting your own utility bills, so unless the price of electricity triples, don’t hold your breath — and even when it does triple, it takes decades for personal infrastructure (insulation, better windows, etc.) to become installed.
<
p>
My sense is that much of the disproportionate enthusiasm for Cape Wind stems from the very American consumer mindset that loves to believe you can buy your way out of sacrifices, difficult choices and hard work by purchasing some seemingly-magic, new hi-tech device.
<
p>
I’m not so sure. For one thing, turbines aren’t particularly new or hi-tech; Holland used them for centuries. I do suspect, however, that Americans are uncomfortable with fossil fuels, but don’t feel that they can reduce consumption enough on their own to make a difference, especially when their neighbor on one side just built a 4500 square foot house for his family of 3 (that’s a lot to heat), and his neighbor on the other side just bought a Ford Exaggeration (that’s a lot to fuel). I think the reason why people are supporting green energy is because they understand that their neighbors can’t be trusted to make decisions that are unselfish. This, after all, is the human condition.
<
p>
But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that additional kilowatts generated by Cape Wind will eliminate the polluted air still being generated by automobiles and the Fithy Five (is it six now?) energy plants located in the Commonwealth. We could end pollution from the latter tomorrow –if the Governor and legislature simply gave the order.
<
p>
It wouldn’t eliminate the polluted air, but it might help to reduce it. Furthermore, the state government doesn’t have as much influence over that pollution as you might like to believe. It’s DOE and EPA stuff, and the state can’t do much about it. Furthrmore, capacity is so tight right now that even shutting down one of the Filthy Five to overhaul it’s pollution controls might force brownouts if the weather got hot on a weekday. Projects like Cape Wind could serve to give enough slack capacity to overhaul a Filthy Five plant.
<
p>
If you’re really adamant about cleaner air, regulating these plants and ending the taxpayer subsdies that allow them to continue business-as-usual shoud be priority number one.
<
p>
I agree. The trouble is that (1) it involves national politics, of which those in MA have far less influence, and (2) it’s hard to motivate non-policy-wonks and government-junkies when you talk about specific corporate tax policies and specific industry regulation.
<
p>
Cape Wind would be nice, but it’s a very long-term solution to our immediate air quality and energy needs.
<
p>
It’s part of a long term solution, but it does offer immediate benefits and, as we all know, the beginning of every great journey is the first step.
<
p>
I am far less outraged by resistance to Cape Wind (even for pure nimby reasons) than I am resistance to forcing our power plants to operate cleanly and subsidy-free.
<
p>
I’m outraged by the NIMBYism, and by the blatant classism involved. While I’m not personally against the BU biolab (I’m not for it either, I claim ignorance), it seems to me that there’s far more press about marring the view for a small number of rich folks on the Cape than possibly infecting tens of thousands of poor predominantly black people with a deadly virus or bacteria.
<
p>
There is no silver bullet to the energy challenges of the 21st century; it will require a diverse, distributed plan where we make small gains many many times. Cape Wind provides for a big improvement at low cost, and negatively effects a small number of people only slightly. It’s a good project.
To summarize, the need to do things right elsewhere and at other times does not excuse our inability to do the right thing here and now.
Most of the suggestions you mentioned are bound by Federal law, not state.
<
p>
Not so. Only the auto-mileage standards are exclusively a federal government issue. Operating requirements for the power plants to upgrade their equipment, maintain it at certain levels, and limit total emissions are within the jurisdiction of the state. The problem is that the governors and legislature have repeatedly granted them exemptions from these stricter standards.
<
p>
Our state government could change this tomorrow if they wanted. It wouldn’t cost a dime of taxpayer money and could go into effect immediately. The change in emissions would be immediate and of far greater impact than anything from Cape Wind.
<
p>
If, indeed, there is an legitimate economic reason why the Filthy Five couldn’t afford the new equipment, I would prefer our taxes spent to help offset the cost rather than an a windfarm (since I live in Boston and breathe the pollutants from these plants).
<
p>
The existence of a wind farm, as you know, doesn’t reduce the pollution from existing dirty plants. As you noted, the energy demand will only increase and existing plants will continue to operate, so we’d better prioritize getting them cleaner now rather than wait until after wind power and other clean sources become the predominant power sources.
<
p>
The transition charge –charging ratepayers for failed energy corporation investments– that I mentioned is also entirely within the purview of state government; it was part of the state deregulation of 1998 and constitutes about 30% of your residential electricity costs.
<
p>
Reagrding the “elitism” and NIMBY name-calling: this seems like a disingenuous effort Wind Farm supporters to delegitimize valid concerns of opponents. One can easily make the case that Cape Wind is little more than a subsidy of rich, elitist investors to benefit the overwhelmingly white, wealthy Cape and doing nothing for the lower-income, minority urban neighborhoods (like Chelsea, Roxbury, Mattapan, etc.) that breathe the pollutants from the Filthy Five and have childhood asthma rates through the roof. These communities need relief now.
<
p>
As I mentioned elsewhere, my concerns are about priorities. I don’t live on Nantucket but am trying to be open-minded about concerns of residents who will have to live with a wind farm.
<
p>
In that spirit, here’s another good post by Jerome at dKos debunking what he says are all the arguments against wind power.
<
p>
Re: rotating tires, I couldn’t find the exact quote, but did find one gov’t reference stating that improperly inflated & rotated tires consumes 5% of a car’s fuel. The larger point being that we ought to master the many cost-free ways to conserve energy rather than spend and buy more.
This is emphatically not an either-or situation. We must have sustainable energy and conservation. But when we have a sustainable energy source available, that it passes environmental muster, that it would be useful and clean, we simply must not pass that up.
<
p>
And I’m going to get my tires rotated this afternoon. Really! 🙂
Call it like it is. The politicians you list have completely, cravenly, sold out our futures on this one. They should hear about it at the Worcester convention. If we could only convert the hot air they generate mouthing platitudes into electricity, our energy problems would be solved.
For any folks interested in some decent background information on wind power, may I suggest this post from Jerome at dKos today (you know, that weblog BMG claims no longer has any worthwile dialogue).
<
p>
Jerome finances wind farms in a professional capacity –mostly outside the US– and gives a pretty balanced overview of the pros and cons, plus some helpful links.
Very good indeed. And by the way, it’s Bob who claims that Kos doesn’t have anything worthwhile anymore … and Bob and I disagree on many things. 🙂
<
p>
I do indeed find that Kos isn’t quite as good as it used to be, but Jerome’s diaries show there are still good things happening there. In fact, I wish the site were more focused on positive things, proposing solutions and developing a vision for what kind of country we’d like to live in. The energy and passion in the community could be put to enormous use — much more than it currently has.
I can’t name another progressive online community that is more impactful –can you?
Bugsy’d like you guys to think he speaks for the Cape, but it ain’t necessarily so (says I from Harwich). Falmouth Enterprise editorial from yesterday:
<
p>
“The behind-the-scenes maneuvering to kill the Cape Wind project is a prime example of law-making run amok.
<
p>
“Well-financed opponents of the 130-turbine wind farm, led by Senator Edward Kennedy and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, are unwilling to let the regulatory process unfold in an orderly and open manner. Instead, they are trying to circumvent the open legislative process to try to ensure the nationâs first off-shore wind project does not become a reality.
<
p>
[…]
<
p>
“At this stage, whether members of the House and Senate are persuaded to kill the conference committee language by the financial argument or concerns about the abuse of the legislative process, it is important to let Cape Wind proceed through the open regulatory process it has been working its way through for the past five years. The Minerals Management Service, the projectâs oversight agency within the Department of Interior, is expecting a revised environmental impact statement this month. Cape Wind will then be subject to more public hearings this summer, with a final decision due next January.
<
p>
“Rather than letting special interests derail the project with undemocratic and unjustifiable back-door maneuvers, Congress should allow Cape Wind to be judged on its merits by the informed professionals in the regulatory agencies charged with oversight.”
<
p>
Full text at:
<
p>
http://www.capenews.net/pages/54
Walter Brooks of Cape Cod Today paid for that ad, and it links to HIS site, not mine.
<
p>
Keep talking, Bugsy – the future of renewables gets clearer every time you open your mouth.
And it’s the ‘our way or the highway’ attitude in that ‘our’ that tells the whole story.
<
p>
BACK TO WIND POWER. You can fulminate against those you disagree with on you own blog.
I’m not sure why anyone would be against:
1. An open bidding process to insure the maximum benefit and protection of public land.
2. All federal regulations regarding usage of public lands be in place before this bidding process.
3. Both sides abstain from stealth legislative tactics.
4. I would again ask as to whether tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks at the federal and state level should be used to make a for profit project economically viable, or could be used in other ways to reduce consumption?
OK, I think we can stop this, please. I think we can disagree honestly, passionately, and vociferously without calling into question one’s motives, Cape-Codder-bonafides, or preference in underwear.
<
p>
Stay on point, please.
Yes, that’s why we’re all so glad that Bill Koch, Christy Mihos, Richard Egan, and Ted Kennedy have given their all to fight against it.
<
p>
This is NOT a partisan issue – that cast of charachters should convince any snesible person.
<
p>
This is about the Vision, not the View.
I just deleted Bugsy’s reply, which contained much invective, and not much substance. When you say, “You are evil”, you have crossed over the lines of acceptable discourse.
<
p>
Bugs, you’re welcome to try again if you can keep it substantive. Don’t make us ban your IP address.
Bugsy seems to have this problem wherever he sets up squatter rights. It was made clear to him at capecodtoday.com that he was no longer welcome, at which point he decided to leave. Expect a disingenuous apology from him, followed by an eventual reversion to form.