Klaus responds to Marathonpundit.blogspot.com

Read the initial post on Marathonpundit...

See the response:

I'm curious about your use of the word "NIMBY" because the Cape Wind project that you uphold so ardently is sited in unprotected Federal waters in the heart of Nantucket Sound. I would hardly call that area Ted's or RFK's backyard, that is public trust land that is being taken by a private developer in his for-profit venture. That's everybody's backyard being destroyed by the installation of 130 turbines and a 10-story transformer sub-station.

Few people realize Nantucket Sound is the only place in the continental United States where protected state waters surround unprotected federal waters. This is significant because our inner coastal water way (Nantucket Sound, which is traversed by 3 million people annually) is managed like the outer continental shelf. Opposition to Cape Wind does not mean that people are anti-environmental - it means that some of us believe that there are better ways to manage our ocean and wind resources by siting turbines in areas the will not need to be dredged to allow installation, in areas that are not heavily used by our commercial fishing fleet, in areas away from the ferry routes and shipping lanes...the list goes on.

As I mentioned before, Massachusetts residents have inherited a donut hole of unprotected waters. Most people don't know that all of Nantucket Sound was once protected from industrial development as Cape and Islands State Ocean Sanctuary. This was undone in the 80's when the federal government took back waters outside of the 3-mile state limit as part of Supreme Court case that involved a number of states in the Northeast - Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland and others. This legislation cannot be undone, and has left our coastal waters unprotected and susceptible to utility scale projects such as Cape Wind.

Lest we forget Nantucket Sound has twice been nominated as a National Marine Ocean Sanctuary.

Cape Wind...Just 10mw?

Wind Power is unreliable, even when you place 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind puts a national treasure is at stake, yet "green leaders" want this project fast tracked. I guess I am missing something.

For now, see above...some food for thought.

Proof positive from Klaus to you

For those skeptics out there who do not believe me that Cape Wind supports spin this project as a cure for global warming, I found the following online…

"The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior has taken over the role of lead federal regulatory agency in the Cape Wind review from the US Army Corps of Engineers as a result of new Congressional authority they received from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In June, the MMS announced the start of a new Public Comment Period on Cape Wind that will end on July 14. I have added my letter to the MMS below and ask that you take the time to write the MMS with your thoughts NOW or before the 15 of July! PLEASE! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sir: I would like to express my thoughts on the essential Cape Wind Project. There is a crisis at hand that probably no scientist can accurately predict called Global Warming! There is probably nothing more benign in view of our energy needs than a wind farm such as CW! I believe Wind Generation is a very important and essential first step to prevent the future destruction that Global Warming will cause. To delay and procrastinate is folly. This is not a nuclear issue but it is a crisis issue. Please allow the Cape Wind project to go forward with all possible haste! Everyone must realize that each MW of electricity that Cape Wind generates is a MW that a coal burning [CO2 pumping] Power Plant does not generate! IT IS TIME TO BEGIN and Cape Wind is RIGHT and NEEDED! Thank you, Robert"

Cape Wind asks harbormaster to tell fisherman's tale

I know the FEIR that Cape Wind just submitted to the State of Massachusetts is long. 5,000 pages long. But believe me when I say this: You might actually laugh out loud at some of the claims in the document.

To find it, head to the Cape Wind website at www.capewind.org/FEIR. From here, take your pick of appendicies. I started with Fishing.

If you head to Appendix D-1 entitled "Survey Fisherman's Comments about the Cape Wind Energy Project" you are in for a real treat. Not only does Cape Wind talk to commercial fisherman, but they also ask our friendly harbormasters and bait and tackle shop employees about the health of fisheries. The following are a few of the ancedotal clips provided by Cape Wind Assoicates.

"Greg Fraser, Falmouth (Harbor Master), has observed no change in species."

Well, either Greg owns his own fishing boat and heads to sea on his days off, or he really has no clue about the state of fisheries in Nantucket Sound. Furthermore, Greg is supposed to be monitoring Vineyard Sound, the waters between Woods Hole and Waquoit Bay. Horseshoe Shoal is no where near there.

I'll get back to you with more fisherman's tales from the FEIR...

Don't Be Fooled...Cape Wind Won't Stop Global Warming

Supporters of the Cape Wind project would have an uninformed public believe that Jim Gordon’s “Vision” of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound is a serious step towards curbing the effects of global warming. Bottom line is that this project would have negligible effects on curbing global carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, the looming eco-apocalypse that will swallow Cape Cod whole is already unfolding. If you don’t believe me, check the latest report from the IPCC. We do not need Cape Wind to stop global warming. It is a pipe-dream to begin to think we can stop global warming; its effects will unfold for over the course of this century, and likely spill over into the next. If sea-levels are going to rise, it is not because of the valiant fight put up in opposition to this project, it is because humans have steadily increased emissions of greenhouse gases since the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

Enter your search terms Submit search form

All this doomsday talk does not mean that there is no hope, but it should put this debate about the placement of this particular project into context. One industrial power plant in Nantucket Sound will not address global warming. It will ruin a place that has and continues to define Cape Cod and the Islands. It will kill birds and disrupt benthic habitats. It does pose a navigational safety hazard to boat and avian traffic. It will cost taxpayers over a billion dollars in subsidies over the life of the project. Too often this debate is polarized by supporters who define all opposition as NIMBY. I believe that these people do not want to talk about the real issues at hand because they know their oppositions’ issues are legitimate and deserve consideration.

I do not doubt that the United States is in need of offshore-renewable energy, and offshore wind appears to be viable, as illustrated by our neighbors across the pond. When Jim Gordon proposed this project in 2001, it was one of a kind. Little has changed since then, and Cape Wind still stands to become the first off-shore wind farm in the United States. For many, the logical thing to do is to sink our teeth into the promise of offshore wind, and get something in the water. Unfortunately, the public is faced with a false choice when it comes to supporting a particular wind project – there is only one to choose! Why is this? Because Minerals Management Service, the government agency now in charge of writing the rules and regulations for all offshore renewable energy on the outer continental shelf of the United States, is still in its rulemaking process. You wouldn’t start spending your own money building a house that the government could tear down half way through. Can we honestly expect renewable energy developers to waste their own dollars in the same fashion? No. And we shouldn’t. The appropriate course of action is to wait and see what alternatives there are to Cape Wind. This will happen, but we have to be patient.

(photo from cjohnson7)

Demystifying the permitting of offshore wind farms

Wind power, and particularly offshore wind, continues to be cited as a clean and green way to generate electricity. Offshore technology has been realized in Europe, but has met serious opposition (and much support too) in the United States. The permitting process has been a slow and complex here in the United States as illustrated by Cape Wind Associate’s proposal to construct 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound. Though the project began in 2001, it is still over a year away from being permitted. Despite this lengthy time table, now is an opportune time to jump in and examine the complexities of permitting offshore renewable energy in the United States.

Minerals Management Service is the leading federal agency in permitting all offshore renewable energy in United States. States, the US Coast Guard, the FAA, the Department of Defense, and others also have the task of reviewing project proposals. This brings us to the most recent development in the permitting process here in the United States.

The recent release of Cape Wind Associates 5,000 page Final Environmental Impact Review (FEIR) to the state of Massachusetts has come before the release of Minerals Management Service’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the project.

This statement may mean nothing to you, but if you are interested in the future of offshore wind power in the United States you should be paying attention.

By releasing their FEIR to the state of Massachusetts, Cape Wind Associates has triggered a 30-day public comment period, which ends in eleven short days (March 22nd 2007). At the end of the comment period, Massachusetts has seven days to decide if the FEIR includes all information relevant to the public and appropriately assesses the scope of the proposed project. If Massachusetts finds the FEIR to be adequate, state agencies will be required to use the FEIR as the guiding document in their permit review.

Though the filing of the FEIR means that the permitting process is moving forward, it seems that Cape Wind is pushing forward without all relevant information. The filing of this document has come before the release of several other key documents from federal agencies that include the United States Coast Guard, the FAA, the Department of Defense, and Minerals Management Service. With several key documents not yet filed, it does not seem possible for the FEIR to contain all relevant information about the project. If the state of Massachusetts finds this document adequate, state agencies will have to move forward and make decisions when data is missing.

In 2005, Ellen Roy Herzfelder, former Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, asked that Cape Wind associates wait for federal agencies to file key documents before proceeding at the state level. She writes, “I believe coordinated review is a good government practice, both in terms of allowing for maximum public and agency understanding of the project and to ensure that review by regulatory agencies is as efficient as possible.”

In addition to recognizing the importance of a coordinated state and federal review process, Cape Wind Associates are asking the public to read and respond to a 5,000 page document in just 30 days. Stakeholders are asking that Cape Wind Associates withdraw their FEIR until federal agencies release their key documents, and are also calling for the public comment period to be extended sixty more days.

If Massachusetts finds the FEIR “adequate” it is likely that Cape Wind will run a press release claiming victory. Not so fast. Though this would be a step forward in the projects permitting process, it only gives state agencies a framework to review the project.

The state of Massachusetts and all federal agencies reviewing the project still need to report their findings and grant Cape Wind a permit before the project is built. All said, do not expect a final decision to come down until sometime in 2008.

Value conflict on the road to energy

The future of the environmental movement is in energy. With world population on the rise, a climbing domestic GDP, and India and China emerging as major players in the global market economy, the environmental movement must navigate an increasingly nuanced energy crisis. Ostensibly, the environmental battle of the future is waged against mining, drilling antienvironmentalists. However, upon closer examination, the true battle is one among environmentalists struggling to protect not only the planet but also the concept of place. Thus, while crusading against the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, the movement must simultaneously withstand a potentially divisive ideological conflict between environmentalists who seek to save Earth from global warming with the development of renewable energy, and those who want to protect specific places.

One of these places is Nantucket Sound. In 2001, New England energy developer Jim Gordon began plans to construct a power plant in the heart of Nantucket Sound. Fast forward to 2007, the so-called Cape Wind proposal has spawned trench warfare between environmentalists who favor renewable energy development in Nantucket Sound and environmentalists who contend that the costs of altering the cultural, historical, and aesthetic integrity of the Sound outweigh the benefits of Cape Wind. Disharmony amid environmental values has forced members of the movement to make difficult choices about the use and preservation of Earth’s resources. And yet, there is no silver bullet to trump global warming, keep the earth pristine, and increase energy production.

I believe that is it the task of the environmental movement is to address demands for cleaner energy without abandoning the places that communities have been built around. Nantucket Sound defines the culture, history, and character of our communities on Cape Cod. The Sound is a place in inherent worth and intrinsic value. We cannot allow this sacred place to become the home of an industrial powerplant.