Senator, you claimed during remarks yesterday at a forum organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Brookings Institution that the missing ingredient to fix the major problem of climate change has been “leadership, leadership, leadership.” I couldn’t agree with you more.
National leadership and support has been severely lacking for the Cape Wind project – a project of transcendent importance that would reduce carbon dioxide emission, a key greenhouse gas, by 733,876 tons per year, which is equivalent to taking 175,000 automobiles off the road each year. It could launch an offshore wind industry right here in Massachusetts and set the stage for a staggering 30,000 jobs. Five major state and federal reports have concluded that the Cape Wind project has minimal to negligible environmental and socio-economic impacts and significant public interest benefits.
Cape Wind is more than just one single project as it serves as a symbol not only of energy independence but independence from the politics as usual. Four times there have been back door maneuverings to stop this project from moving fully through the review process and each time at the last minute those attempts were defeated. They were defeated by a combination of grassroots efforts, labor support and environmental voices all saying if this project passes regulatory muster than it must proceed.
You were quoted in the October 2008 Brockton Enterprise article, “Kerry Poised to Support Cape Wind Project” saying, “My view on Cape Wind is very simple. I’m all for wind power. If the EIS comes back approving it, I’m all for it.” You promised that upon issuance of a positive FEIS you would come out in support of the project.
It’s been seven weeks since the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on the Cape Wind project giving it the “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval.
It’s been five weeks since I sent a letter to you Senator asking that you keep your promise and speak out in support of Cape Wind. Seize the opportunity for leadership, leadership, leadership Senator.
Barbara Hill
Executive Director
Clean Power Now
www.cleanpowernow.org
It is nothing short of shameful that politicians need to be reminded to keep their word. This project has been delayed for too many years. Polls show that the majority of both Cape and Islands residents as well as Massachusetts residents support this project. Why should it be so difficult for our local politicians to see that their constituency needs their support on this issue?
<
p>Thank you Barbara for reminding Kerry that he works for us and we want him to keep his word and support Cape Wind!
It was very shady, and then it showed up in the papers. I feel guilty about answering the question “do you support Cape Wind or the terrorists” and getting counted in the “yes” column. So I have to speak out. Sorry Cape Cod!
…to that question.
John, John Kerry…
<
p>We can’t heaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
<
p>Time to honor your word & committment to renewable energy projects John, so step to the plate an show us what kind of may you are.
<
p>Do the right thing and come out & publicly endorse the most important project on Cape Cod since the National Seashore.
<
p>Your constituency will thank you and appreciate your courage.
I don’t think they’re missing leadership, they seem to have plenty of people who live off the Cape ready to tell the people on the Cape what they should think. If that’s not Democratic leadership, what is? Saving the people from themselves, year after year!
Let’s throw more good money at a failing business model. The only way this project gets off the ground is with taxpayer money, that we can’t afford, both fed and state. Let’s pad the pockets of Jim Gordon and his wealthy energy partners at the expense of the taxpayers. More money well spent.
You show me a single shred of evidence of money going from taxpayers to the project. A single shred.
stomv, not even cape wind will deny this. The project is not viable without them. This will be the most expensive energy going. Cape Wind will receive up to $80 million annually in public funding through the federal Production Tax Credit and state renewable energy credits.
On top of rates New England residents would pay Cape Wind for their electricity, federal and state taxpayers would be paying well over $1.3 billion in tax credits and subsidies over the life of this project. Because offshore wind projects are expensive to build, they depend on electricity rates as well as additional sources of revenue including tax credits, renewable energy certificates, and favorable tax treatment through accelerated depreciation. Jim Gordon is in the energy business, he is not doing this out of the goodness of his heart, he is doing this to make money, at the expense of the taxpayers.
that’s all wind projects. Just like all nuclear power plants would have to be turned off tomorrow if Uncle Sam didn’t pay for the insurance. Think coal fired plants would be functional if the Feds didn’t allow for mountaintop removal and didn’t charge for the pollution?
<
p>As for the $1.3bil, there’s no reason to believe that the production tax credits will exist for ever. In fact, there’s every reason to believe that they won’t. I’d be surprised if they last another 10 years; the cost of wind installs is going down as the price for wholesale electricity is eeking upward… I don’t think Congress will keep renewing the subsidy every year or two.
<
p>
<
p>There’s no question that Jim Gordon wants to make money on the project. So what? If the public benefits from cleaner air, the potential to reduce oil consumption (Chevy Volt et al), and perhaps the preservation of some mountain tops, why shouldn’t the public support the project?
don’t quite see the bias against profits on the left. Profits means that a venture is viable and makes sense. Or maybe we should just fund projects that will lose money hand over fist so we’re stuck with a bunch of half built stuff littering Nantucket Shoals.
First, the tax credits you refer to are after the project is built and delivering clean renewable energy. All sources of energy production depend on tax subsidies, tax credits, depreciation. Second, Cape Wind has to compete to sell their electricity in a deregulated market and no one will buy more expensive electricity. What type of generation do you want to support? One that uses no water, produces no CO2 and is inexhaustible and forever and that we don’t have to import from foreign countries or blow up mountain tops to mine the source? So what if the developer will make money, let’s hope that is the case, which mean more developers will propose projects and that means more renewable energy. All good and significant public interest benefits. The taxpayers are subsidizing the energy business in R&D and in hidden ways the public is not even aware of. I would much rather see my dollars going to support renewable energy for the benefit of us all.
BFT – Private investors will finance this project. This is a standard business model in this country. There are tax credits AFTER the project is built and producing clean renewable megawatts of energy. Those federal and state tax credits were implemented by Congress and the state legislature to attract renewable energy project proposals. What is spending tax payer money are the numerous frivilous law suits from the deep pocketed opposition group. Each time they sue a regulatory agency (and they have done that six times and lost each time) your tax dollars are paying for the attorneys to defend the agency.
Not something associated with John F. Kerry. Kerry has problems ordering lunch. Because Seneator Edward M. Kennedy doesn’t want the wind farm in his backyard—it ain’t gonna happen. What is more important: Jobs, reducing our dependence on carbon based fuels and reducing copious amounts of pollutants in the air or Senator Kennedy’s view.
There you go—-what is paramount is the Senators view. What is good for the huddled masses and the electorate is of no consequence. ” The public be damned.”
Not nuclear, ethanol, oil, none of them. The price should be the cost of the product and the end energy user should be paying the cost to produce that electricity, period. This is not the time to be giving away any money to private developers of any kind, we are in the biggest financial crisis that we have seen in over 75 yrs and our tax dollars should not be given away to private developers.
If you don’t think energy production should be propped up, why don’t we start by making dirty energy companies pay the true costs? Those costs are what people in my community in Perry County in Eastern Kentucky pay everyday. I am afraid to drink the water due to the heavy metals leaching into our drinking water from the strip mining. There are high rates of cancer here. There have been 1,400 miles of streams buried in Eastern Kentucky because the regulations have been watered down. Our homes are being destroyed by blasting, and our mountains are being pushed into the valleys. I would gladly ask my government to invest in clean sources of energy, like the Cape Wind Project. If not, I would certainly hope we could level the playing field by asking coal companies to stop making our communities pay for it. Senator Kerry, please take some leadership. Please help support Cape Wind. Is it too much to ask that we do not destroy a whole culture in Appalachia because you don’t want windmills off the coast? I want my community to be able to have a future.
Here’s the problem: If the gov’t pulls the nuclear subsidy, the nuclear power plants have to be powered down. Now. We now have blackouts everywhere.
<
p>We could gradually remove subsidies, but it would be a tricky bit, managing the increasing price (and all the constituents unhappy about it), making sure that power plants don’t get turned off entirely (like nuke) until capacity has been created to replace it, balancing the grid load, etc.
<
p>
<
p>I’d like to see subsidies leveled first, then rolled back as Congress sees things come up. Roll back exploration subsidies. Charge full market value for the fuels mined. Charge full cost of cleanup. Charge for polluting. Start doing that, and the price of electricity goes up substantially — and then renewable energy sources will pop up everywhere because they’ll compete on price.
How much is that costing us—in many more ways than one.
Reform the pathetic institution called the primary calendar. Do it now. This would be the perfect time to seriously examine this problem.
and I’ve never seen a particularly good answer — one that’s both thorough and technical.
<
p>In terms of food prices, I don’t believe ethanol has a substantial impact. Lots of rhetoric disagrees, but I’ve never seen an economic article that claims corn based ethanol resulted in statistically significant price increases in foodstuffs. The fact is, Americans don’t eat much corn. Corn flakes, corn chips, corn on the cob and nibblets make up a few percent of the corn grown. We drink more corn from 12 oz cans than we eat straight. A bushel of corn can make 33 pounds of sweetener or 2.8 gallons of ethanol — and corn is currently trading for about six cents a pound ($3.50 a bushel). $4.00/gallon for gas caused the food price spike, not ethanol.
<
p>Ethanol is energy positive, but not by much. However, it does allow the US to use BTUs of natural gas and coal to move automobiles, both of which are domestic. So, in terms of fuel balance of trade, ethanol — even corn based ethanol — helps.
<
p>Is corn based ethanol the way we’ll eliminate petroleum consumption? Of course not. No one thing is. But, ethanol has proven to be a good replacement for MBTE, allows us to replace foreign oil with a domestic (fossil) fuel, and may percolate the market until switch grass, cellulose waste, or genetically engineered methods replace corn as the primary input source.
<
p>
<
p>So, problems? Yeah, ethanol has them, particularly corn and soy based ethanol. Want to reduce those problems? For every 28 gallons of fuel you don’t consume, that’s a bushel of corn not going toward ethanol thanks to the 10% limit on ethanol content of gasoline. Consume less gasoline to mitigate the ethanol debacle!
Here’s the problem: If the gov’t pulls the nuclear subsidy, the nuclear power plants have to be powered down. Now. We now have blackouts everywhere.
<
p>We could gradually remove subsidies, but it would be a tricky bit, managing the increasing price (and all the constituents unhappy about it), making sure that power plants don’t get turned off entirely (like nuke) until capacity has been created to replace it, balancing the grid load, etc.
<
p>
<
p>I’d like to see subsidies leveled first, then rolled back as Congress sees things come up. Roll back exploration subsidies. Charge full market value for the fuels mined. Charge full cost of cleanup. Charge for polluting. Start doing that, and the price of electricity goes up substantially — and then renewable energy sources will pop up everywhere because they’ll compete on price.
Tennessee Valley Authority – anyone?
I live on Cape, and have worked for CPN for years. I’ve always been ashamed of being represented by Kennedy, Kerry and Delahunt, and never more than over this. It isn’t just Kennedy’s selfish reasons – at least he’s honest. It’s the snivelling kow-towing of the others that really turns my stomach – and watch, they’ll turn on a DIME the moment Kenendy passes, and try to claim they were for it all along.
Peter – You have added tremendous value to the many years of discussion on the Cape regarding the Cape Wind project. On this issue it really has been the citizens leading the leaders and when public opinion polls show 74% of citizens on the Cape and islands support this project you begin to ask who are the politicians representing. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do.
John Kerry, sadly like his senior Senator Kennedy, just doesn’t get it. Massachusetts has this wonderful opportunity to became THE leading state in offshore wind in America. Sure, some object. But those same objectors, if alive back in the 1700’s and 1800’s, would have prevented some if not all lighthouses that dot our coastlines from being built. I’d have little problem with Senator Kerry’s hypocrisy if he simply would stay silent on national issues like energy independence and climate change. But he doesn’t stay silent. He searches out opportunities to speak out in general support of renewable energy. That’s not leadership. It’s hypocrisy.
We are “kinder” in our rationing?
http://niketalk.yuku.com/topic…
Time+power use=Time when you can not afford to have power
<
p>Are you genetically inclined to get……?
Will that affect my credit score?
http://www.patientprivacyright…
<
p>Small scale power generation is definitely not in the cards. They squashed it after 1973 and they will most defintely squash it again.
2. Small scale power generation already exists in most states, due to net metering laws.
Thanks for this great post. How many years has this project been sitting in review committees? We can’t really wait any longer for clean power. Lets start construction this summer!