Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Only Deval has it right on wind farm

By

As far as I’m concerned, it’s ok to be oposed to the project, but you damn well better have one credible fact-based reason to be opposed. Such was not, and is not, the case with Reilly. It was obvious that the only reason he opposed the project was because Sen. Kennedy, and the majority of elected officials down here opposed it. There’s no courage or wisdom there, and certainly no vision for the future.

Patrick, on the other hand, after talking with all sides, and learning all about the project, concluded, even though he knew it would ruffle the feathers of the politically connected down here, that the project should proceed.

By way of further background and perspective, I’m a 25-year ferry boat captain on Nantucket Sound.

And by the way, a solid “Majority” of Massachusetts voters do understand the need to develop renewable energy resources, and support the Cape Wind project.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I applaud Deval Patrick for his vision on this issue, but Andrea Silbert also deserves praise for her courage in supporting Cape Wind because she actually lives on the Cape.

    • She hasn’t made a statement to the press giving clear, precise, complete support to the project.  She’s spoken in generalities, and I suspect she’s riding the wave that Patrick found months ago RE Cape Wind.

      <

      p>
      That’s fine — I’d rather LG candidates weakly support Cape Wind than weakly oppose it — but it’ll take about a dozen links to convince me that Andrea Silbert supports Cape Wind like Deval does.

      • At the Watertown Lt. Governor’s forum I attended, she clearly stated that she supports Cape Wind. Both Goldberg and Murray had various caveats about how maybe they support it if certain conditions are met. Silbert was the only candidate to support it with no reservations. Period.

        <

        p>
        As others have said, this is more notable given that Silbert is a resident of the Cape and has been a long-time member of Cape environment groups, some of which have expressed opposition to the project.

  3. I’m not completely versed on detailed position, but my sense is Gabrieli has the same or very similar position as Patrick.  Can anyone clarify?

    • And this was at least 2-3 months ago, was that Gabs was theoretically in favor of wind projects, but wanted to get all the facts before the decision. I think that pretty much sums up his stance.

      <

      p>
      Was he just being a cryptic politician or really weighing it, I don’t know… but the fact that I can’t point out his exact stance on it — and this is me, someone who devours info on Cape Wind — means that if he supports it, he’s not being very proactive in his support.

      <

      p>
      You can support an issue and you can really support an issue. At every event I’ve seen Deval speak, he’s spent serious time talking about Cape Wind. Cape Wind is one of the primary reasons I support Deval Patrick.

      • From his website:

        <

        p>

        Yes, I support the Cape Wind project, although I do have some questions about the leasing of land. I want to make this project a reality if we can get a good deal for the taxpayers, and I believe I can.

        Unfortunately we’ve allowed this one project to dominate the debate over renewable energy. Massachusetts needs a comprehensive policy to promote renewable energy. That policy should include greater investment by the state in renewable energy, and in the companies that are developing innovative technologies that will lead to a cleaner environment and additional jobs for the Commonwealth.
        As on other issues, Gabrieli seems to me to have the most responsible position of the three candidates. This kind of nuance I think pays the most respect to voters’ intelligence and is the least polarizing.

        • Everything from “There’s a difference” down is my commentary. The Gabrieli quote ends at “Commonwealth.”

  4. Perhaps you disagree with Tom Reilly’s stand, but to say that his position is unprincipled or lacking in specifics is absolutely, positively inaccurate.  As I have previously mentioned, Reilly position on Cape Wind has been clearly articulated since February 11, 2003.  Reilly has been working on this issue for a long time.  He didn’t just arrive at it during the course of this campaign.

    <

    p>
    I appreciate that many BMGers support Cape Wind (almost as a litmus test for renewable energy issues) but in order to provide a more balanced and fair representation of Tom Reilly’s position, I will repost portions of my earlier entry, which can be read in its entirety at the previous link.

    <

    p>
    From a February 11, 2003 press release:

    <

    p>

    “We have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the question of how the federal government can allow a private party to occupy federal land with only a permit from the Army Corps,” AG Reilly said. “We continue to question how this valuable public resource can be given away to a private developer.”

    <

    p>
    Or maybe this March 11, 2004 press release:

    <

    p>

    AG Reilly, a supporter of renewable energy, has repeatedly called on the Army Corps and other federal officials to seek legislative authority to establish a comprehensive process for the construction of future off-shore wind projects to appropriately address planning, competitive public bidding, compensation, and state involvement. Last year, AG Reilly came out in opposition to the proposed 130-turbine wind farm off Cape Cod, calling it a flawed project that would “industrialize” Nantucket Sound, one of the Commonwealth’s greatest public resources.

    <

    p>
    There are more details on Reilly’s position, his energy plan, and other renewable energy projects in Massachusetts at the link above.

    • That’s pretty unprincipled to me.

      <

      p>
      1.  In a sense, he’s out of bounds complaining about Federal policy as AG — unless he was doing it every time offshore oil and gas rigs were built in Federal waters off the coast of Texas, Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, or at the very least, didn’t consume any gasoline, home heating oil, or natural gas in that time frame.

      <

      p>
      2.  His facts have been consistently wrong, which would seem particularly unprincipled for an AG.  He’s been parroting the “giveaway” line, which has been demonstrated false to him on multiple occassions.  He’s been intentionally glossing over the permitting process Cape Wind has gone through — including the many permits, environmental studies, transportation studies, etc.  Mischaraterization reaks of a lack of principle.

      <

      p>
      3.  He’s worried about “industrializing” Nantucket Sound with a few dozen visible turbines, which will be shorter than your thumbnail at arms length — but doesn’t seem to be too worried about replacing the coal burning power plants (huge smokestacks, smoke coming out of those stacks, in addition to the pollutants including mercury and very small bits of nuclear waste) in Salem or the Canal Plant.  Doesn’t seem very principled to me.

      <

      p>
      Nah, this isn’t about principle.  This is about taking a seemingly popular stance and about not having the courage or vision to see where Massachusetts has to go in the future.

      <

      p>
      I’ll vote for Tom Reilly if he wins the Democratic Primary.  But, I’ll also regret not winning a champion of green energy in the corner office.

      • Let me address your arguments one by one:

        <

        p>

        In a sense, he’s out of bounds complaining about Federal policy as AG — unless he was doing it every time offshore oil and gas rigs were built in Federal waters off the coast of Texas, Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, or at the very least, didn’t consume any gasoline, home heating oil, or natural gas in that time frame.

        <

        p>
        Actually, a significant part of being the State’s Attorney General is to ensure that the Commonwealth’s interests are being served.  Oftentimes, the Federal Government will trample on a state’s rights to serve the Bush Administration’s interests, esecially when it comes to a “blue” state like Massachusetts.  So, no, Tom Reilly “isn’t out of bounds.”  He’s doing his job.  And since he was elected to represent Massachusetts, nobody would or should expect him to be involved in offshore proposals affecting other states.  The federal government and the state wage battles over process all of the time because “process” is what shapes decisions.

        <

        p>

        His facts have been consistently wrong, which would seem particularly unprincipled for an AG.  He’s been parroting the “giveaway” line, which has been demonstrated false to him on multiple occassions.  He’s been intentionally glossing over the permitting process Cape Wind has gone through — including the many permits, environmental studies, transportation studies, etc.  Mischaraterization reaks of a lack of principle.

        <

        p>
        “His facts have been consistently wrong?”  Easily said, now prove it.  Tom Reilly invented the “giveaway” line when he staked out his position in 2003, long before Deval Patrick decided to “study” the issue as a candidate for Governor and fashion a position last fall.  Reilly has never denied that a permitting process exists.  His argument is that the “process” itself is a sham, completely lacking in a meaningful role for the state.  Additionally, there is absolutely, positively no guarantee that Cape Cod or Massachusetts in general will receive any of the energy created by a wind farm.  At least Tom Reilly isn’t parroting the developer.

        <

        p>

        He’s worried about “industrializing” Nantucket Sound with a few dozen visible turbines, which will be shorter than your thumbnail at arms length — but doesn’t seem to be too worried about replacing the coal burning power plants (huge smokestacks, smoke coming out of those stacks, in addition to the pollutants including mercury and very small bits of nuclear waste) in Salem or the Canal Plant.  Doesn’t seem very principled to me.

        <

        p>
        Please, get your facts straight.  Those coal-burning plants existed long before Tom Reilly took office and he has successfully pushed for emission reductions at such facilities, including Salem.  Replacing those facilities will require substantial investments of private capital.  In the interim, there are jobs at stake and more importantly, as opposed to the Cape Wind proposal, facilities such as the Salem plant actually provide energy TODAY to the state’s residents.

        <

        p>
        Some Reilly critics (a handful of Patrick supporters) never cease to amaze me.  When Tom Reilly takes a position that is probably supported by a majority of the electorate, such as supporting the income tax rollback, he is “pandering.”  Then, when Tom Reilly takes a position that is opposed by a strong majority of the electorate, he is still somehow “playing politics.”  Usually, when you want to be politically opportunistic, you align yourself with the majority of voters, not the other way around.

        <

        p>
        Meanwhile, Tom Reilly’s energy policyis far more detailed than anything Deval Patrick has put forward, and yet Deval is somehow “the champion of green energy.”  Yup, OK.  Whatever.  I’m sure as General Counsel at Texaco, Deval Patrick was opening chapters of the Sierra Club and sparing baby seals from deaths-by-clubbing.  Meanwhile, Tom Reilly was actually working on these issues back here in Massachusetts.

  5. …for headlining long-time Cape activist Rick Elrick in this great post. Rick’s always been there on important issues — Cape Wind, Clean Elections, you name it — down here on Cape Cod, and goes the extra yard by working as day in and day out as a community activist, in addition to writing some fine newspaper OpEds and columns.

Archives