Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Cape Fear

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted January 18, 2006.


A plan to build one of the largest wind farms in the world -- in eco-activist RFK Jr.'s backyard -- is causing conflict in the environmental community.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A long-simmering disagreement within the environmental community over a plan to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass., is now boiling over into a highly public quarrel.

The four-year-old battle started heating up last summer when Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal, a shallow portion of Nantucket Sound south of Cape Cod.

Kennedy -- a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council and a pioneer in the waterway-protection movement -- was on a sailboat for an event with the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the wind project. A Greenpeace vessel cruised up alongside with a banner that read, "Bobby, you're on the wrong boat" -- a stunt that was part of a larger Greenpeace campaign pressuring Kennedy to change his mind on the development.

In mid-December, Kennedy, wanting to explain his position to critics and the public at large, published an impassioned op-ed in The New York Times in which he argued that the wind farm would mar a precious seascape, privatize a publicly owned commons, and damage the local economy.

That, in turn, prompted about 150 environmental advocates -- including global-warming authors and activists Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan, Bluewater Network founder Russell Long, and youth leader Billy Parish -- to circulate a letter asking Kennedy to reconsider his position. "We are, simply put, in a state of ecological emergency," it read. "Constructing windmills six miles from Cape Cod, where they will be visible as half-inch dots on the horizon, is the least that we can do."

Signers of the letter also included "Death of Environmentalism" authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who made the quarrel far more personal -- and nasty -- in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle last month. They called on Kennedy to step down from his position at NRDC, and took a swipe at his famous family by criticizing "the privileged patricians of a generation for whom building mansions by the sea was indistinguishable from advocating for the preservation of national parks or big game hunting in the wilds of Africa."

Kennedy shot back this week with his own opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, calling Shellenberger and Nordhaus's attacks "dishonest vitriol."

Choosing Sides

The venture at the center of all the fuss -- the Cape Wind Project, being developed by Cape Wind Associates -- would be the first major offshore wind installation in the U.S., and one of the largest wind farms in the world. It would produce enough electricity to meet nearly 75 percent of demand on Cape Cod and nearby islands Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, with peak output of 420 megawatts.

The permitting process for the project, which began in 2001, is nearing completion, and Cape Wind is widely expected to get the green light from the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service within a year. If state permits for the sea-bottom transmission lines are obtained, as expected, construction on the wind farm could begin mid-2007 and be completed in roughly two years.

The Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and a handful of local and state conservation groups have raised concerns about Cape Wind. On the other hand, a number of major national environmental groups have been supportive, including Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and NRDC. Some, though, are waiting to officially endorse the project until the final environmental impact statement comes out later this year and clears up uncertainties about avian impacts and other issues.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Concerned environmentalists or selfish Americans?
Posted by: anothername on Jan 18, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how many environmentalists buy an electric car and forget that electricity also means environmental harm as it must be generated somewhere. It is amazing how many environmentalists drink bottled water and do not think of the damage being done to the aquifers at the bottling source, not to mention the energy used in bottling, shipping, and disposing of the commercialized natural resource. It is amazing how many environmentalists live in large houses and use remote controls, all of which draw from the energy grid. In other words, if we don't want so many windfarms, coal-fired power plants, or nuclear power plants we all must stop being so greedy. By the way, think of how much energy is used to power routers and servers to provide 24-hour Internet access and how much energy goes into powering cell phone towers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Points.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 18, 2006 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Kennedy has some good points. However, the greater good must prevail.

Build the wind farms, especially where the rich and powerful will see, hear and feel them.

The rich and powerful need to make more sacrifices for the greater good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Points. Posted by: crusty
» RE: Good Points. Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: Good Points. Posted by: hotar
» A "friggen" men!!!!! Posted by: Pepper
» RE: Good Points. Posted by: yeimaya
Nothing in the article about the Cape Cod Green Party
Posted by: Lizmv on Jan 18, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just moved from Marhta's Vineyard to a more affordable area 6 weeks ago. I was on the Vineyard 20 years and sat on the Tisbury Affordable Housing Committee and was somewhat involved with the Tisbury Energy Committee, The Vineyard Energy Project, Sustainable Martha's Vineyard, Million Solar Roofs, etc. The Cape Cod Greens have been opposed to Cape Wind because they are STRONGLY opposed to the privatization of the local resources. This is really the issue for those opposed. What has been suggested many times but is NOT being heard (it didn't even get mentioned here by Alternet!) is a wind wind farm who's charter limits ownership of shares to those who reside on the Cape and Islands. Local control will keep the corporation responsible if things go wrong and as the profits will be retained LOCALLY, it will strengthen the LOCAL economy. There is even the idea of giving loans to low income families so they can purchase stock, repaid with the dividends. This is how Denmark is developing wind energy along it's coast.
If we are to develope a sustainable furture, free of oil exports, we need to strengthen local economies and stop handing control of our daily needs to large corporations who are only there to drain the local economy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm all for wind turbines, just not in my backyard!
Posted by: sausage on Jan 18, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or in the case of Mr. Kennedy, my back Houseshoe Shoal.

Thus we witness the eternal conundrum of the wealthy liberal. He may be thinking that the proposed wind turbine farm will adversely effect his property's value. Of course the wind farm could have the opposite result.

Perhaps RFK Jr's dilemma can be solved if he invests heavily in the Cape Wind corporation stock. Perhaps he wasn't offered stock at the company's inception, so this is what raised his ire?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeimaya
Posted by: yeimaya on Jan 18, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has any consideration been given to the Whales that use the area around Cape Cod! Humpback Whales are already getting entangled in fishing gear would the cables effect their ability to feed? Even more urgent, what about Right whales whose population hovers around the 300 individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeimaya Posted by: dkm
LUDDITES?
Posted by: kittynboi on Jan 18, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do environementalists want eco-friendly technology, or just no technology at all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep RFK Jr Around?
Posted by: danjkelly2 on Jan 18, 2006 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read all the articles regarding this issue and I still haven't made up my mind which way I would ultimately throw my support (I live in NJ which has proposals for offshore windfarms, although I believe they're supposed to be farther out from shore...we also used to vacation in Welfleet on the Cape, so I took an immediate interest in this). The one thing I am fairly certain of is that it would be a mistake to completely ostracize Mr. Kennedy thereby perhaps fractioning the movement. I agree with the comments above by the person who emphasized the importance of local economies and the fact that we needn't be beholden to huge corporations or centers of power. And I'm not here to say that Mr. Kennedy in any way "epitomizes" or is even the main speaker for environmentalism (though I suppose the latter may be argued). I realize, too, that he comes from a family of politicians who, although they may be considered "liberal-minded" in a rhetorical sense, certainly haven't always been very progressive in practice (ask the Vietnamese what they think of the idea that JFK was interested in peace...or the Cubans, for that matter - we could go on). All that said, I think RFK Jr. is passionately concerned with the environment, and I think it's valuable to have people involved who are so close to centers of business and power, as I imagine he must be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Free Lunch
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 18, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the concerns brought forward by Kennedy are legit, even if he is motivated by a NIMBY attitude.

Everything has a price in the end. Hydro does not pollute the air, but causes problems with the river ecosystem. Solar does not pollute the air, but photovoltaics are made using some very nasty chemicals. Nuclear has issues with disposal and handling of waste. So it should not surprise us that Wind power has issues as well.

The best practice is treading lightly with efficiency. R & D into more efficient lighting, HVAC, Refrigeration and Transportation would yield far more per dollar/yen/pound/euro invested than any of these technologies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Free Lunch Posted by: gladwyn
This is not Bobby's only blind spot
Posted by: truthteller on Jan 18, 2006 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me start by saying I think Bobby Kennedy does a lot of good work. I also enjoy listening to his show "Ring of Fire" on Air America Radio. That said, if it is true that he opposes the wind farm for reasons of primarily self-interest, it would not be the only thing he can't see the conflict between his beliefs and personal actions.

Mr. Kennedy has four children, all born after the 1972 Club of Rome report "The Limits to Growth" came out, warning about human overpopulation and it's devistating consequences (which we are now starting to reap). If he had truly taken all of the environmental warnings to heart, he would have paid less attention to his Catholic upbringing, and more to the future of the World and chosen a smaller family. Now, we are in the position of not just limiting people to one child per family, but to only 25% of couples being able to have one child - if we are to survive as a World worth living in (based on estimates that the Earth can only support a pre-Industrial Revolution population of under 2 billon).

It should have been the duty of environmentally aware opinion leaders, like Kennedy, to set the example over the past 3 decades. Same goes for other progressive opinion leaders like Thom Hartmann (3 adult children). Thom, I love your work, but you shouldn't have done that either. Nobody should in this day and age; certainly nobody that is supposedly informed and "environmentally aware".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dangerous territory Posted by: truthteller
Generating Electricity with Thermal Gradients
Posted by: benzene on Jan 18, 2006 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There exists the technology to generate electricity in any place where there is a noticeable difference in temperature. The device in question would be placed in between the two different temperatures (e.g., different sides of a building's outer wall) and the 'hot' and 'cool' sides would be enough to drive a simple piston back and forth, which in turn would turn a generator and generate electricity.
As such, I think that conservatives who think that the environment doesn't matter could, in fact, do a great service to the environment simply by wearing such devices strapped over their mouths. Not only would their insipid bombast be silenced, but they'd finally be useful as well, putting all that hot air to good use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So True!
Posted by: Drae on Jan 18, 2006 6:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't agree with you more. I don't have and won't have kids because it's not fair to this earth and it's not fair to the kid. Can you imagine what people born after the year two thousand are gonig to endure when they're forty? Makes me shudder to think of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kennedy and his money...
Posted by: lewis_medlock on Jan 25, 2006 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
unfortuantely, the NIMBY mindset (not in my backyard) prevails even in the spawn of RFK.......

him and old walter cronkite should be ashamed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]