This is who gives environmentalists a bad name....

Great Debates
1

First off, let me say I consider myself “greener” than 95%+ of the population & there’s not much I hate more than seeing environmentalists dismissed as “whack jobs”, but this is ridiculous…

Seems a company wants to put an offshore “wind farm” in Nantucket Sound which will, by their estimates, generate 75% of the power needs for the Cape Cod area (one assumes that if people could be persuaded to conserve a little, it might actually provide 100%). WIND POWER - no smog, no oil spills or leaking storage tanks, no radioactive waste, etc, etc. So what happens? A group of self-styled “environmentalists”, fronted by Walter Cronkite and RFK Jr. is opposing the project for “aesthetic reasons”. See:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Business&cat=Alternative_Energy

Nevermind that the country is in DIRE need of new, environmentally-friendly energy success stories. Nevermind that Kennedy works for the National Resources Defense Council, which says on their website that “wind power today is one of the most promising alternatives to our society’s current dependence on fossil fuels”. Nevermind also that the graphic that’s supposed to show how “awful” the proposed project will be doesn’t look all that bad to me (especially if you paint the damn things blue instead of the stark white they choose to use in their graphic). See:

http://www.saveoursound.org/visual.html

One wonders if these dolts have any clue as to what other forms of energy production do to the landscape. Would they prefer to rely on oil, or natural gas? There’s a good article, for example, on the effects of natural gas extraction from coal beds at:

http://www.mojones.com/news/update/2003/33/we_485_01.html.

Presumably, that kind of mess in someone else’s state is fine, but their “aesthetics” are off-limits…

The political side of the coin is almost as mind-numbingly hypocritical. Seems Ted Kennedy plans to lend his support to a proposed amendment to the Energy Bill (although, as I read things, he doesn’t have the cahones to introduce it himself) that would give individual governors the power to block offshore wind farms in the ocean adjacent to their states (which would work in this case, ‘cause Mitt Romney is opposed to this project). States’ rights, in other words. The absurd thing is that Kennedy was smart enough to vote against ANWR drilling despite the fact that Alaska’s governor, (I believe) its full Congressional delegation, and (by the only poll I could find) 75% of its population support drilling. So, if Alaska doesn’t have the right to enforce its will on Federal land within its borders, why should Massachusetts have the right to block an infinitely more desirable energy project off its coast??
AAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!

2

One of my favorite ‘definitions’ of an environmentalist is, “Someone who already has a house in the woods.”

I wonder if these guys have property in the area? (I admit I didn’t read the links yet)

3

This thread has been done before…twice.
As I understand it, the basic environmentalist argument is this: wind power is environmentally friendly so that should override any other potential issues or concerns.

What gives environmentalists a bad name is that they have no understanding of the actual issues involved. The fact that you feel a 420 MW plant (that is max value by the way, actual output would be 30-40% of that) is comparable to 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of anything having to do with energy.

That’s fine that you don’t think that the wind turbines look “that bad” however since you are not a resident of the Cape, it’s not really up to you to criticize.
If you look at this simulation from the developers site:

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

you can see that there still is a significant visual impact. It is up to them if they want to spend more money purchasing electricity from states where visual impact is not such an important part of their economy.

4

They should build a wind farm off the coast of Oregon instead. Nobody goes to the beach in Oregon.

5

Well, I looked at that simulation and it didn’t look that bad at all.

I don’t know about the claims that the wind farm would provide 75% of the energy needs for the area. For one thing, how large of an area are they realistically talking about? I don’t know if this thing would replace “10.4 billion barrels of oil” (is that per year?) but I don’t think it would be such an eyesore that it would seriously impact the scenery, tourism or property values.

My opinion, of course.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by msmith537 *
This thread has been done before…twice.

My apologies for not spending enough time on these boards to realize that…
As I understand it, the basic environmentalist argument is this: wind power is environmentally friendly so that should override any other potential issues or concerns.
I’d state it more like this: finding and demonstrating power sources (wind or otherwise) that do not pollute or contribute to global warming should override the aesthetic “concerns” of a few wealthy landowners. No, I don’t believe that anyone has a fundamental right to demand to be able to consume dirty energy just so they can be happy with the view from their living room window. Unless, of course, they can find some way to keep all of the consequences of their energy choices in the “backyard” also…
The fact that you feel a 420 MW plant (that is max value by the way, actual output would be 30-40% of that) is comparable to 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of anything having to do with energy.

Try reading the post before opening your mouth - I never equated the two in terms of net energy output. My comparison was in the hypocrisy of using an argument based on states’ rights to kill this particular project, while opposing Alaska’s “right” to push for drilling in ANWR. BTW - this is the Dept. of Interior estimate; other gov’t reports put the figure at more like 7.7 bbl. Either way, that’s a hell of a lot more CO2 released to the atmosphere as we keep our mindless devotion to fossil fuels. Not to mention the fact that it will take at least seven years to get any production from ANWR on-line, and even its peak production will decrease our current dependence on foreign oil imports from 62% to 60%. Again, these figures are take from gov’t reports. Still think I have “no understanding”?

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PhDMetalhead *

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by msmith537 *
This thread has been done before…twice.*

My apologies for not spending enough time on these boards to realize that…

[QUOTE]

It’s called the “Search” button and it’s a good idea since odds are if you thought of it, someone else has thought of it first.

It isn’t just the concerns of a few wealthy landowners. There are thousands of people who live on the Cape and the nearby islands who depend on tourism for their livelihood.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PhDMetalhead *
Try reading the post before opening your mouth - I never equated the two in terms of net energy output. My comparison was in the hypocrisy of using an argument based on states’ rights to kill this particular project, while opposing Alaska’s “right” to push for drilling in ANWR.

Try loosing the attitude.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national resource. The Cape Wind project is a local power project on AFAIK in state-owned waters. Once again, apples and oranges.

Now think of a replacement for oil and I’ll be impressed.

8

Its the old “Not in my Backyard” argument we’ve seen a million times with a million other issues. Nothing new here, move along…

9

Sorry, wrong - I quote from the original AP article: “Because Cape Wind is proposing the project in federal water, states have no power to stop it”. This is precisely why the (Federal) Army Corps of Engineers has final say over the project, and it’s also why there would need to be an amendment to the national energy bill (see my original post) to give Gov. Romney the authority to block it… still seem like apples and oranges?

Which brings me to…

So, if this has been discussed to death already, how is it you can’t get the basic facts straight??

What about the people who live down wind from whatever power plants are currenly supplying the Cape with electricity? I’m willing to bet, if it’s anything like my neck of the woods (suburban Chicago), us middle- and upper-class white folk don’t have to put up with any of that in their backyard. I’m willing to bet that Mass. has plenty of areas equivalent to Gary, Hammond, etc., which bear the brunt of the environmental effects of power generation. Lastly, I’m willing to bet that most of those those people would love to be nextdoor to a wind farm, as opposed to their current station.

There are plenty of alternatives out there. Wind, solar, fuel cells (not, by the way, the Bush BS version where the H2 comes from coal or oil, but the water-splitting version). And, eventually, fusion. All we need is a gov’t that isn’t dominated by oilmen, and a public who gives enough of a crap to demand other than token research efforts in these areas…

10

Maybe they should build the windmills with transparent materials. Or better yet, co-opt the military’s “cloaking” technology and apply it to the windmills. Is it really just an issue of aesthetics that’s causing resistance?

11

Actually, I think the ones who (ELF) burn down buildings give them a worse name.

12

How much energy has to be consumed, and how much co[sub]2[/sub] is released, to build such a wind farm? To build the wind turbines, haul them into place, and install them? How long before it “pays for itself”?

13

I don’t know. Maybe I don’t care because it’s not that important?
Bongmaster is right, there is no debate here. This is simply another case of environmentalist hypocracy - If you won’t build a clean energy plant, you are a NIMBY. If the government forces you to build an oil platform then they are violating states rights. If ANWR was a prime wind area and Cape Wind was an offshore oil rig, your arguments would reverse to support your environmentalist agenda.

Bottom line - the Cape residents are the ones who have to state at the wind turbines all day. The turbines are a local facility that will need to be suplemented by other power sources anyway. They should decide.
fuel cells?
:rolleyes:

14

Is it? For it to be hypocrisy, they really have to be enviromentalists. Is that really what they are? From the article, all I can see is that one person, Isaac Rosen, has stated “We are environmentalists”. Are they really or is he simply speaking for himself? Or is this simply a case of NIMBYism cloaking itself in environmentalism in order to gain respectability? You seem to be implying a long list of environmental hypocrisies, but I suspect that many of them are simply people using the term to gain respectability and refute charges of NIMBYism. I guess it boils down to how we define the term “environmentalist” (a difficult thing to do). Because the definition is so fuzzy and because there are so many gradations of “environmentalism” it’s inevitable the we will find MANY cases of apparent hypocrisy. But I see many people (not necessarily you) using these instances as proof that all “environmentalists” are either NIMBYists, socialists, or idiots. IMHO they are incorrect.

15

I am curious, have the potential builders looked into whether or not another area nearby can substitute for the proposed wind turbine location? I mean, maybe they can just build the turbines further north or south (or east or west, don’t know the area:) ), and not have the view be an issue.

As to msmith537’s comments, I don’t know, but I don’t think it is a case of hypocrisy. Any smart person will want to have a clean energy source over a dirty one, and that’s the basic premise here. Aesthetics are very important, I won’t deny, but the argument is that a perfectly clean resource is proposed for an area that is using a dirty one now. Those in opposition to it seem to be opposed because of the marring of the seascape, while those in favour see it as an alternative to pollution-causing sources which are already marring the landscape somewhere else. No environmentalist would argue against using the ANWR for wind power, because that would not (or at least should not :wink: ) affect the wildlife and natural environment there in a negative way. What they are arguing for is cleaner energy sources.

16

That’s oversimplification if I ever heard it. We had 8 (torturous) years of Clinton, with at least a few of those dominated by Dems in both houses, and I don’t recall them doing anything about the situation, either. If I’m wrong, please prove me wrong, but I didn’t see a huge amount of electric cars or development of alternate fuels/energy. No more than right now, anyway.

17

:smack: Oh geeze, please forgive my spelling of hypocracy! :smack:

18

slight hijack…

Another thing that nobody ever mentions in the replacing oil debate is how to substitute for the other products that oil provides than just gas. Plastics and petro-chemicals are as much the life blood of this country as gasoline.

19

On second thought, I was correct! msmith537 was the one who was spelling it wrong.
Never Mind.

20

Yeah, but the amount of petroleum cosumed in the manufacture of Hello Kitty toys and other petrochemicals is pretty insignificant when compared to the amount of petroleum consumed in the manufacture of gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, and heating oil.