Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod" - By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:01 PM
Original message
"An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod" - By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
Edited on Fri Dec-16-05 12:02 PM by bloom
AS an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.

According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks.

Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy. <more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?th&emc=th
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. He'd be even more bent out of shape
were they to consider putting those turbines on one of the uninhabited islands, home to colonies of endangered waterfowl.

The placement on the shoals was a compromise. The shoals are shallow and the highly visible turbines would certainly mark them better than the buoys now do.

There are wind farms sprouting up throughout the southwest. Yes, they do generate noise along with electricity, but it's not the noise he's leading us to expect. It's not that loud, Robert.

As for the warning lights, they wouldn't steal the stars. They'd be the blinkers now seen on radio and TV towers, nothing in terms of light pollution compared to the floodlights on all the McMansions on the Cape and the Islands, including his own family's compound.

I suspect that what has Bob all riled up is the fact that he may be inconvenienced on one of his sailing days and that the romantic view from the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis will change. I suggest he get over himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You can think that
I agree with him - but I would also say - that if we are going to protect areas from disruption in favor of birds and wildlife - that we should turn more of the area into public lands - so everyone can enjoy it - and not just wealthy people. That is the just of his argument - protecting the "commons". Actually - I wouldn't be surprised if he wouldn't go along with that - the creation of more public lands - even if some of that land happens to be held by members of his family.

It doesn't seem to me that some of the best areas have to be destroyed when there are other alternatives.

The argument against his ends up sounding like people who just want to screw the rich (and the Kennedys in particular) - not people interested in the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Um, what part about protecting colonies of nesting
waterfowl didn't you get?

This article is a petulant screed by a rich man who is afraid something for the public good is going to fuck up his precious view, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Except one problem.

Almost everything RFKJr says above is utterly and patently FALSE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. What an utter screed. Recommended.
Edited on Fri Dec-16-05 12:24 PM by skids
DUers need to see what RFKJr is up to with this and apply pressure. If he were to just be obstinant, that's one thing. If he's going to spread lies and FUD about Cape Wind, he needs to be called out bigtime.

EDIT: Cape wind already has a response up, FWIW: http://www.capewind.org/article108.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. NIMBY
plain and simple
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusmcj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. we could get advice from those who know how to do it
Edited on Fri Dec-16-05 12:31 PM by dusmcj
instead of the dumbasses from our corporate/government complex proposing corporate solutions which suck.

Compare and contrast if you will the wind farm in the valley leading from LA to Palm Springs with the wind power installations all along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts.

CA: small fast-turning turbines lined up in neat rows like carpets across the desert floor. Many older models not operational. Painted white.

Europe: large slow-turning turbines sited semi-randomly in open areas, towers painted to blend with landscape. Ubiquitous, not confined to a dense patch (where the density will affect turbulence and airflow).

The corporate solution: put them offshore so that those rich enough to live on the coast can feel environmental without participating. Let's engineer structures in salt water, in shipping lanes, with power feeds running to shore, rather than having a functioning interaction between government, industry and society to design low-impact turbines with the optimal blend of production efficiency and environmental safety, and siting them appropriately to sustain that minimal impact.

Count on the free market, or rather the degeneration thereof promoted by the degenerates who promote it, to fuck anything up.

Government, business and social structures all exist solely to serve the interests of the people. Not the other way around.

(For a US instance of more effective windpower development, consider the wind farms in the hills east of San Francisco - random siting along ridgelines, larger, slower-turning turbines, effective blending into the terrain. Requirements:
- a public that understands the underlying need to drive effective and safe alternative energy, and are willing to accept changes to their environment which are designed to minimize impact, but not at the cost of capability
- a government that understands that its role is to provide structural means for advancing the public interest, not provide boondoggles to sustain inefficient businesses)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. Just what the left and the environment need...another fake
Edited on Fri Dec-16-05 12:35 PM by Township75
this guy cares about his precious view and that is it.

Fuck this fake! Clean energy (relatively) or his view...I know what I support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm really kinda skeptical it's the "view."

...because the impact on the view will be so completely minimal.

From Cape Wind's rebuttal:

"In clear conditions, from a distance of 6 miles at the shoreline of Hyannis Port, the wind turbines will appear one half inch high on the horizon if you were to extend your arm straight in front of you and separated your thumb and index finger. From the Town of Nantucket, at 13.8 miles, the wind turbines would appear as tiny specks on the horizon in clear conditions."

As far as I'm concerned, this bullshit is so contorted and exaggerrated that it's more likely that Kennedy doesn't believe a word of what he's saying -- he's saying it due to some vested interest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly...this is just a pick-a-cause liberal whining that he...
picked the wrong cause.

I could care less if they were built with bright lights and fireworks shooting off of them. If this could provide us with renewable and relatively clean energy, it needs to be done.

Kennedy is such a dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. Make him spend a year living next to an Appalachian coal strip-mine.
Or a mile down-wind of a coal plant. Then we can get back together and talk about his problems with wind-farms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. But that's where the "little people" live, phantom power...
People like RFK, Jr. don't live where the little people live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Actually - he is the one person that I have heard
out there actively complaining about the Appalachian coal strip-mines.

I think he is good voice for the environment - overall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Anyone who complains about strip mines while nixing alternatives is
basically full of shit.

This is the oldest dodge in the world. Anything that displaces coal, oil and natural gas is critical to the survival of the world. It's really that simple.

The Kennedy family as a whole, going back to Joe Sr, and including John and Bobby, has received far better press than it ever deserved based on practice and policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
12. Ahh, yes... more BS from my friendly neighbor RFK, Jr.
RFK's main objection is that this project will mess up his view, the rest is just "noise".

This is the same RFK, Jr. whom I saw eating at a restaurant in my town, with his oversized Acura SUV parked outside at the curb. He considers himself an environmentalist, yet I doubt he has once taken public transportation in Westchester County, and he lives in a large house outside of town from which you have to drive to go ANYWHERE.

Not only that, but his tantrums agains the NYCDEP and calls for them to drill the aquaduct that might be leaking are beyond insane to anyone with a slight knowledge of engineering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. "shipping, ferries and birds will collide with turbines?" Only if NOTHING
is done to divert their movement away from the turbines...which should have been an environmentalists precautionary stipulation, instead of the PRIVELEDGED's whine of "visible from shore" declaration. JFK Jr. seems to lack his Dad's inventive spirit and drive to accomplish technology for the common good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
16. I See The DU Circular Firing Squad Is In Formation
Just because, in my opinion, he appears to be coming down on the wrong side of this issue does not discount the good work he is doing in other areas.

Just because he is fairly well off and drives an SUV does not discount the good work he is doing in other areas.

I feel that he has a point regarding protection of historic and natural areas. Also, as far as I am concerned, the energy company’s claim of minimal visual impact falls flat as evidenced by their own simulations (see pictures below). If I was a landowner, I could see those who are not aware of our dire energy predicament being pissed.

OTOH, what really makes the Cape area unique. If it where not for the historic structures, it would be just another stretch of seafront. This is not Yellowstone, Glacier or Yosemite. I see no way this wind farm will adversely impact these historic structures. I would have hoped that enlightened liberals would accept the sacrifice of their view for a clean, renewable energy source.

So, yes, he is probably coming down on the wrong side of garden variety NIMBY. You can leave me out of the lynching, though.

http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=9&page=1



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Speaking for myself...
I think there is a difference between calling "bullshit" and a lynching. I'd vote for Kennedy against a Republican opponent, for instance. (Unless it was a damned unusual opponent)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Whatever
The following seem to go just a bit beyond simple "calling bullshit"

" . . article is a petulant screed by a rich man who is afraid something for the public good is going to fuck up his precious view . ."

"Just what the left and the environment need...another fake "

" . . this is just a pick-a-cause liberal whining . . "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. If he were arguing to put them in someone else's backyard
- a view that the someone else's were equally intent on preserving - then that would be one thing.

He notes:

"Scotland is preparing to build wind turbines in the Moray Firth more than 12 miles offshore. Germany is considering placing turbines as far as 27 miles off its northern shores.

If Cape Wind were to place its project further offshore, it could build not just 130, but thousands of windmills - where they can make a real difference in the battle against global warming without endangering the birds or impoverishing the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties."


I am just someone who likes to visit various beaches now and then - including Cape Cod - and I like to be able to look out to see the horizon without looking at a bunch of crap. So that is my "self-interest". If the wind turbines could be situated 27 miles out - so that they are not in view of the shoreline - like Germany is considering - that would seem like a good thing. It figures that people in Europe would be able to come up with a reasonable solution - what the hell is the matter with us? Sounds like pig-headedness to me.


Maybe other people don't get FSTV and UCTV and LINK TV that has shown RFKjr. giving speeches on the environment, factory farms and various other things. As far as I'm concerned he is the best spokesperson I have heard on the environment in about 10 years. Too bad he's not GOD. Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. The Company Website Seems To Indicate That This Is The Only Place
a wind park can be erected.

Horseshoe Shoal also has convenient access to the populous Northeast and the electric grid. In fact, extensive meteorological and marine studies have determined that Horseshoe Shoal is the o­nly site in the region that has the required characteristics.

Sounds kind of hard to believe to me, but so be it. If, indeed, I thought that the wind park could simply be located further offshore at slightly higher cost, and had some self-interest in the issue, I would be fighting it too.

Without knowing much about this whole project, I have to wonder a little about the motives of the people pushing it. Why drop it there when it could be located further offshore? Are they doing this just to be controversialb (re: false flag operation)? Just because it will be slightly cheaper is not justification. The environmental permitting process is all about cost-benefit if there are alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I'm partly suspicious
because it seems like the only argument I've heard for putting the wind things there - is that people are angry that RFKjr. DOESN'T want them there.

Before - I had only heard this argument from Republicans - so I thought - well that figures - THEY would say that. I was pretty surprised to see such hatred of him here on this site.


I think it is rather a nuisance that shorelines get to be more and more bought up and inaccessible - because I do like going to the shore. And part of the appeal is to get away from human infrastructure. I don't mind knowing that it is just over the horizon - but I don't want to have to look at it.

Seems like the more things like this clutter the shore - the more rare and inaccessible clear views will be to the rest of us. The Kennedys will always be able to be somewhere with a nice view. That is not the case for most of us. And that particular shore - like he pointed out - is very accessible to a lot of people. Not like Alaska - or something. I would like to get up there, as well. And maybe I will someday. I hope there is something to see when I get there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Deep sea would push this off a decade plus.

Sure, Scotland is "preparing" to do so. As in, they are going to erect a couple and see what needs to be improved. Deep sea wind farms are a decade out in fact -- we need to get moving on this now.

Most of RFK's "facts" in his editorial are equally misleading.

As far as your preference to not see a bunch of crap at the beach, don't go to a beach in Cochuit then. I do note that you chose the picture of the proposed site that is as close as you can get to the turbines on land... Go to Nantucket -- then they'll just be white dots along with all the sails. Or if they bother you even then, go out even further on the Cape.

Me, personally, I plan to go take the boat tour of the wind farm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. see my post 23
that I was writing while you were writing yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydad Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Thanks for the pic
In fact this is a rather ugly addition to the seascape. Here in SoCal we have oil and gas offshore platforms that appear about the same size from shore. They are about a dozen ranging from 4 miles to 12 miles offshore and several hundred feet high in the Santa Barbara Channel. A lot of the public cry has been due to visual impacts although our 1969 oil spill is a factor. The trouble with wind is that it relies on a stable power grid that has the excess capacity to stand alone without the wind. In essence wind electricity saves fuel only, not infrastructure. As we hit Peak Oil/Gas and systems fall apart I doubt the wind farms will be of any help at all. They may in fact just be rusting metal, a legacy of good ideas plugged into a faulty system. Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. I can understand his point, up to a point.
Edited on Thu Jan-19-06 10:38 PM by amandabeech
Some of the best wind power sites in Michigan are on some of the most beautiful Lake Michigan beach front.

Much of that beach front is open to the public as Sleeping Bear National Seashore, Manistee National Forest and Ludington State Park, among other parks and reserves. One of the National Forest sites is a extremely rare micro-environment and is under joint management with the Nature Conservancy, among other organizations and contains beautiful hiking trails among the dunes as well as unobtrusive wooden observation decks. It's gorgeous! Ask Al Gore. As a child, his family vacationed at a Methodist "encampment"/resort near Ludington State Park and the Nature Conservancy area.

Most of these public lands have low or no admission fees and are absolutely jammed in the summer with tourists from Michigan, Indiana and Illinois from all social strata. In the event that high oil prices in the future limit private travel, many of these areas are accessible by train or, from Chicago and Milwaukee, by passenger or auto ferry, as well as by bus.

These are the last sites that I would want to see developed because they are exceptional, accessible and offer possibilities for those with modest incomes.

I'd rather do a lot of conserving and put more wind power in less desirable locations and accessible in order to save these sites. I might consider putting another nuke or pumped storage project in other locations to save these sites. However, at some point, putting wind towers up may be necessary, and I realize that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC