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 Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future

By Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb, Public Affairs Books. Posted June 8, 2007.


A new book, "Cape Wind," tells the controversial story of what happens when a wind farm is proposed for the backyard of some of America's most wealthy, famous and politically powerful people.
capewindstory
cape wind
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb's new book, "Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound" (Public Affairs, 2007).

Prologue

December 6, 2004

Martha's Vineyard Island, Mass.

David McCullough's face contorted with anger. "It's outrageous!" he yelled. He sounded like anyone but the mellow, well-measured man of letters who narrated tales of American history on national television. Indeed, the popular author sounded quite overwrought. Nantucket Sound, he shouted, is "hallowed ground."

He had uttered that phrase before, as the narrator of Ken Burns' famous Civil War documentary aired on public television. This time, however, he was sounding his own battle cry, crowing his promotion to general in the seaside civil war, a war that had become an internationally watched conflict over the future of energy and of America's air, coasts and oceans.

On this late-fall evening, as the sky spit a chilly mixture of snow and sleet, McCullough's big voice filled the high school auditorium lobby on Martha's Vineyard, an island favored by movie stars, politicians, the international jet set, authors and other glitterati. He continued his mini oration, "This is a preservation issue. It's not an environmental issue."

McCullough, surrounded by a small circle of admirers, had just walked out of the first of a group of four public hearings called by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding a proposal to build a large electrical-generation project in the middle of a body of water known as Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind Associates, a limited liability company, wanted to place a vast field of wind turbines out in the salt water. The turbines would, said the developers, produce enough clean electricity to satisfy a considerable proportion of Cape Cod's needs. Indeed, on rare occasions, the project would supply all the necessary electricity, obviating the consumption of fossil fuels.

Over the three years the battle had raged, McCullough's opposition to the project had become common knowledge around Cape Cod and the wealthy islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, in part because of a highly emotional radio advertisement he had recorded that excoriated the project.

Rarely, however, did McCullough appear at public meetings about the wind farm. Indeed, like so many of the beautiful people engineering the public show of fury over Cape Wind, the television star and author preferred controlled, closed-door situations. Tonight, though, after refusing a request for a formal interview, he sputtered on. "This is visual pollution," he complained. He was unable to stop talking. As he and his entourage departed the building, the sentences trailed after him, like leaves blowing in a high wind.

Cape Wind, the brain child of a small group of innovative energy developers, first made headlines in the summer of 2001, only weeks before Sept. 11. The first adamant public opposition surfaced less than a month after the World Trade Center disaster.

Cape Wind president Jim Gordon, a fiercely driven and ardently independent man who had made millions during his 30-year career as an energy entrepreneur, had initially proposed erecting 170 towering wind turbines five miles off the Cape's southern coast. During the course of the battle, as offshore wind technology improved, the number of turbines had dropped to 130, but the output of the individual turbines had grown considerably, from 2.8 to 3.6 megawatts each.

The project's resultant "nameplate capacity" would have been 468 megawatts, quite large for a wind farm. The project's typical output, however, would have been rather less, since wind turbines only rarely operate at full capacity. Because Nantucket Sound's winds often blow best when electricity is needed most, during the frigid wintertime when fossil-fuel costs are high or on hot summer days when Cape Cod's many 7,000-square-foot shoreline homes have their air conditioners pumping hard, an ocean-based wind farm seemed to Gordon an obvious solution to New England's power-generation dilemma. Lacking indigenous fossil fuels, the region suffered extremely high electricity prices. Moreover, much of the region's electrical generation was aged, inefficient and consequently highly polluting.

Because New England's coastal regions are already so overdeveloped, little space remained for land-based wind projects. Building offshore seemed an obvious solution to the crisis. Nevertheless, Gordon, a wildcatter, had shocked the region by proposing the massive project. Although offshore wind had a successful ten-year history in Europe, the projects to date had been relatively small-scale. Nothing this ambitious had been built, although several proposed projects far exceeded the size suggested for Nantucket Sound.

Gordon was undeterred. Ebullient and confident, he believed his project would pay off financially while also cutting down on fossil fuel emissions. From Gordon's point of view, the region would be trading a small area of the ocean, used mostly for recreational sailing and saltwater fishing, for cleaner air and a leadership role in clean energy innovation.


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

See more stories tagged with: wind turbines, cape wind, nantucket, wind farms

Wendy Williams is the author of several books and has also written for publications such a Scientific American, Science, the Christian Science Monitor, Audubon and others. Robert Whitcomb is the editor of several books and is the vice president and editorial-page editor of the Providence Journal.

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:
Not in MY backyard!
Posted by: Mamarianne on Jun 8, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flagstaff, Arizona, prides itself on being clean and green. However, a proposed wind farm between Flagstaff and Winslow prompted a similar "Not in my backyard" protest. Personally, I think wind farms have a special beauty of function. Due concern about these farms should not be focused on the "view." Due concern should be, and often is, focused on the impact on wildlife at wind farm sites.

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

David vs. Goliath?
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 8, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read Cape Wind yet, but I can't believe it doesn't include extensive discussion of the environmental impact of the project and, at least as important, an assessment of how well it will meet the energy needs of southeastern Massachusetts and at what cost. Dear AlterNet editors, why didn't you include at least some of that material in the excerpt? Why did you choose instead an excerpt that "frames" the battle as plucky, dedicated David -- Jim Gordon, a rich energy entrepreneur -- versus Goliath -- rich summer people and their political lackeys? The article barely acknowledged that year-round working people even exist on Martha's Vineyard (and by extension on Nantucket and Cape Cod). We didn't have names and we didn't have voices. Yeah, I'm one of "them." We have many names and many voices and quite a few views on the proposed Cape Wind project, and whether we're pro, con, undecided, or ambivalent, our opinions are grounded in the realities of living here. I assume Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb included some of us in their book; I wish AlterNet had chosen to include an excerpt that acknowledged our presence.

David McCullough, for all his faults, is a longtime year-round resident of Martha's Vineyard. He also has strong connections to the island through his wife's family. From the great seat of judgment maybe he looks like just another celebrity. From here -- well, maybe he's just another celebrity, but from some angles Jim Gordon looks like just another rich speculator-developer who wants to make big bucks from the Cape and Islands. From here -- again, from certain angles, and in a certain light -- the Cape Wind saga looks less like David vs. Goliath and more like Goliath vs. Goliath. From a distance it's easy to see these battles as good vs. evil, virtue vs. vice, progressive vs. reactionary. Up close and personal it's a bit more complicated.

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

David McCullough is a phony
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 8, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have watched David McCullough's programs on PBS. He has been criticized by academics and professional historians as a "pop" historian. Someone who frequently sugar-coats and whitewashes the facts--especially when it comes to glorifying the U.S. and people he considers his personal heroes.

He is also the darling of outfits such as the Heritage Foundation. Edwin J. Feulner, President of the Foundation, recently gushed that he was "our kind of historian"; and someone who fits in with the Foundation's political commitments, including "preserving individual liberties," and "limiting government power."

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

In my backyard, please.
Posted by: yellowskylark on Jun 8, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live on Cape Cod. I am not wealthy, I do not live in a mansion on the water, and I do not have any political ties. I do care about our planet, particularly the tiny spit of sand which I call home. I have been disgusted by the "not in my backyard" crowd since the beginning of the wind farm debate. Is your multi-million dollar view more important to you than the planet and the rest of the people on it? I understand that there would be negative environmental consequences from wind turbines, that it could cause shipping issues and harm marine life, but one fact remains - WE ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF OIL! I'd rather have relatively clean energy than no energy at all.

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

» RE: In my backyard, please. Posted by: vangogh69
» It's not just about the view Posted by: hagwind
What a lopsided article!
Posted by: agathena on Jun 8, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It didn't take much reading for me to get the idea:
Wind Farms are Good! no matter what.

So I jumped to the conclusion, and for sure
Wind Farms are Good!

So by all means we must destroy the countryside, the raptors, the bats, and after the turbines are all in place, people will moan and groan:
"What have we done?"

Check out the big investors in wind farms, the new "greens" - the color of money that is. All the big energy companies are involved.

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

» Why do folks Posted by: apophenia_monkey
What's wrong with these people???
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jun 8, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we still not sure that we're running out of oil AND that the planet is heating up due to fossel fuel consumption. So yeah, their precious view of the Atlantic is altered; on the flipside, they can continue to LIVE THERE if their energy needs can be met. Of course, they're not planning on sea levels rising, which they are already, which is too bad since that will force they to either spend more money (to raise their "homes") or move entirely (again, spending money). I guess since money's no option, it's really about blind greed and shortsightedness. Quite sad, actually.

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

The Alliance makes me sick
Posted by: CollD on Jun 8, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They want it all, huge houses with huge energy costs to heat and air condition them, and they also want everyone else to pay for it. Where does much of the power in southern New England in massachusettes come from? Once suspect is Brayton Point, and on nice summer days you can see the black smoke rising into the air from that wonderful coal power plant that is among the regions dirtiest. And the Bay it sits on, the quality is low because of the hot water discharge it releases into the bay. Who pays for this? The rest of us in the quality of our bay and air. And the whole country, from where the land is destoryed where the coal comes from to burn, to Global Warming.

The Environmental Impact of the project passes in the eyes of science. The only real debate is, they just don't want to look where their power comes from. Well, I am sick of looking at where there power is coming from now, 10 miles from my house. I vacation on cape cod frequently as well, and i give this project two thumbs up. Its time we start taking responsibility for our energy use, by cutting down and searching for renewables. When global warming is upon us, i think their beautiful view will no longer exist, nor will it matter.

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

Federal Wind Energy Initiative Needed
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jun 8, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am ignorant of many of the specific details regarding this Cape Wind project but one thing I do know is this world needs to replace fossil fuel energy consumption.

Not only are we running out of fossil fuels making this change a necessity on that point alone but even more importantly the continuing use of fossil fuels is increasing the temperature of our planet, changing eco-systems, and killing of thousands and thousands of animal species.

We need a Federal Wind Energy Initiative to build wind farms throughout the U.S. in areas with the highest amount of wind power.

Web sites like AWS Truewind have mapped wind speeds throughout the U.S. including New England which shows with convenient maps, where the best sites are for these wind turbines.

Regardless of local NIMBYist objections the country and the world needs to turn to new sources of energy and we should not let a few people who become offended by having their views spoiled prevent the rest of us from moving forward with pollution free renewable energy sources.

What we need more than anything is a President with true leadership skills and vision enough to see this impending energy economy transformation through before it is desperately needed rather than after.

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

The same thing happened in Marin...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 8, 2007 1:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the San Francisco chronicle actively participated by running several front page giant headlines on "Windmills kill birds!".

Face it - the coal/natural gas/nuclear dominated electrical utilities don't want to see loss of market share to conservation, energy efficiency, or wind and solar generation.

Thus, they've been running yet another PR campaign that attacks renewables - solar doesn't work, windmills kill birds, conservation is un-American, etc. etc.

Most of the solar PV and wind turbine producers are from Japan and Europe, because the technology development has been deliberately hampered by fossil fuel interests in the United States.

People are still moving renewables forward, however.
His wind turbine supplies all of the energy for his home, and about half of his ranch's needs. From his vantage point, wind makes a lot of sense in Marin, particularly the used Vestas turbines that he has. (Even Willard acknowledged the superiority of this technology. "They are like the Volkswagon Beetle cars, they just go and go and go...") Pasternak summed up his views in this way: "I think wind turbines look really cool. I don't see them as detraction, but rather as an enhancement to the environment."

When asked about concepts such as "community wind," a model of development popular in the Midwest, Pasternak's eyes grew even bigger with enthusiasm. Under this format, several farmers, and even schools and small businesses could pool their resources and communally own a wind turbine. "That would be ideal for Marin County," said Pasternak. "Maybe one person has a good windy site, but lacks the capital. Others in the community can come up with the cash. Think of it, we could actually cooperate on a community level to bring clean energy to Marin County from the wind."


Think about what would happen to PG&E and Southern Edison profit margins if this became widespread - they'd plummet. That's why they are spending so much on PR aimed at defeating renewable energy production.

Here are the major owners of PG&E:
Goldman Sachs Asset Management (US)
Lord Abbett & Co
Franklin Templeton
State Street Global Advisors
Barclays Global Investors (UK)
Vanguard Group
Barclays Global Investors Na
Putnam Investment Management
Franklin Portfolio Associates
JPMorgan Chase (US)
Bessemer Group
AXA Rosenberg Investment Management
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc
Aronson & Partners
Janus Capital Corp

Barclays is the prime owner of Exxon; Goldman Sachs was behind the lowering of gas prices before the 2006 election; Janus Capital was Enron (and they walked away with clean hands), and all the others also have major holdings in nuclear, coal and petroleum. Cheney keeps all his money in the Vanguard Group (100 million+). Nevertheless, PG&E has created an image of itself as a 'green power supporter' via their extensive propaganda operations.

That's the way the energy world works.

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

I love these Gore types who give speeches on how bad we are that we
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jun 8, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are causing global warming, hurricanes, floods, etc and yet use their private jets, limos, have huge mansions, multiple cars, eat exotic foods, and so forth. Typical of the Hollywood and the Limousine Liberals. All talk but won't do anything themselves. Very similiar to all the 'conservatives' who LOVE prisons and locking up the poor/minorities but don't want prisons in their county!!

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

Denmark generates 20% of its domestic electricity needs from wind power.....
Posted by: mjabele on Jun 8, 2007 9:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....how is it that this particular renewable energy source finds such ready acceptance there?

Are Danes nature-haters? Bird-killers? Indifferent to the beautiful ocean views they have from their many islands? I doubt it, somehow.

I live in Massachusetts and spent more or less every summer of my youth vacationing on Nantucket Sound (Chatham, to be exact). I'll admit that isn't the same as living there year round, but I honestly wonder what the arguments against Cape Wind are from ordinary working-class folks who live on the Vineyard or other shores of the Sound. Do they honestly have to do with the potential impact on wildlife? If so, are those really based on a reasonable assessment of what's likely to occur? Bird-kill and negative effects on sea life have not been significant issues in Denmark, from what I've read.

Personally, I'd be happy to consider a wind farm in my own corner of northern Massachusetts. It's beautiful here, too, and, at least in my view, would remain so despite the appearance of some wind turbines. Perhaps they could replace some of the old smokestacks in the decayed mill towns nearby.

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

From the Author
Posted by: wesuwi on Jun 9, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are all very interesting comments, although I continue to be rather startled by people who complain about this just-released book without reading it.
This book is only superficially about the ambitious offshore project known as Cape Wind. It is much more about the democratic process in 21st century America. The Army Corps hearing described in this prologue cost taxpayers thousands of dollars to put on. When a small group of people steal such a meeting, we all foot the bill for their shenanigans.
Most people who actually read the book -- rather than just complain about it or about the project itself -- do understand that.
Reviews of the book, listed on the book's website, are overwhelmingly positive. Many strongly emphasize the issue of democracy, and how it has played out in one particular situation.
The strategy outlined by Doug Yearley, then head of the well-heeled group opposing this project, was outlined in great detail in a semi-secret meeting at this historic (and expensive) Wianno Yacht Club in the summer of 2002. The meeting is recounted in great details in the book. At that meeting, to which I was invited by a yacht club member, Yearley said he intended to make opposition look like a "grassroots" environment movement, because he understood quite clearly that people who didn't want their yachting upset would carry little weight outside of Cape Cod.
At the end of that short morning meeting, I was told that Yearley had collected more than $4 million.
This strategy of creating "grassroots" groups that do the bidding of wealthy backers was perfected by none other than Jack Abramoff, beginning as early as the late 1980s. As outlined in several very important books, including The K-Street Gang published last year, Abramoff had become astonishingly adept at accepting money from Indian gambling interests to achieve various goals, like keeping a casino from a neighboring tribe from being permitting.
Abramoff would accept money from one tribe, then go into the region where a competing tribe was considering building, and found a fake "grassroots" anti-gambling, more-majority-style group. Money from Abramoff's client-tribe would then be funneled into that fake grassroots group, which would then write letters, campaign and lobby politicians, in order to create the appearance of considerable opposition to gambling in the region of the potentially competing casino.
That is exactly what I and my co-author saw happening here. Attempts to create the appearance of much more opposition to the Cape Wind project than actually existed.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound went so very very far in its attempt to accomplish this goal that the organization actually forged the names of real people on a petition which was then submitted to Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romeny (who did everything possible behind the scenes to prevent this project from being built) and to the federal government.
When I telephoned those whose names were forged on this petition, several people with whom I spoke told me that they had not signed this petition. They also told me that, far from opposing Cape Wind, they supported it.
There are plenty of non-wealthy people on Cape Cod who do not want this project. That's fine with me. I don't care. They have a perfect right to their opinions. Whether this project is built or not is not my point.
My point is that the opponents to Cape Wind have spent more than $15 million to date, trying to muck up the democratic process in order to get their way.
If the citizenry doesn't stand up and speak out about this sort of behavior our democracy will continue to decay.

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

How about the common good rather than me, me, me!
Posted by: AFWXMAN on Jun 9, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I have serious doubts as to how many Americans even care about the environment. Having spent the past 20 years around military bases I know that there wouldn't be little natural land remaining on the central California coast region if Vandenberg AFB, Fort Hunter-Liggett, and Fort Ord hadn't been there. It would all be houses, farms, and ranches. And there are still green areas on the upper peninsula of the tidewater region of Virginia thanks to Fort Eustis, Camp A P Hill, the Yorktown Weapons facility and other military reservations. If left to developers that whole area would be one continuous subdivision. It seems to me that, if left to the whims of the marketplace, most Americans would wipe out those areas and screw the environment.

When New Englanders talk about the wind farms ruining their source of tourist income, they are truly full of it. Has anyone seen the oil platforms off the Santa Barbara coast? Those have been there for years, and still the tourists come. How about the wind farm at Palm Springs? Strange how that hasn't affected their tourism either. The fact is that a wind farm may affect the Cape economy for a short time, but the tourists will return and the energy generation will become a new part of the economy.

Do you know why the Europeans have less trouble getting programs like this started? Because the Europeans at least try to balance personal desire against the common good. Wind power is good for everyone. Hey, but let's give these guys a choice. They can either have the wind farm or a wicked big nuclear power plant! Cue the final jeopardy music............now!

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

wind farms and property values
Posted by: wesuwi on Jun 10, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, the project is unlikely to affect tourism or property values at all. There is no substantive data that shows that it will. It's important to remember that this project these people are raising such a fuss over is more than five miles out to sea. Most of the time, the project will be invisible from the land.

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

democracy and hearings
Posted by: mwildfire on Jun 11, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the author states that the real focus of the article is about how the democratic process of a public hearing, put on at public expense, has been jeopardized by well-heeled private interests. I read the whole thing with such a sense of irony, as I've been to dozens of public hearings on proposals for a pulp mill, coal mines, and coal-fired power plants here in West Virginia, and I don't see a lot of science and a lot of reasoned debate. I see long hearings in which employees of the Department of Environmental Protection or the Public Service Commission listen impassively as scores of people argue eloquently and passionately against the proposal; if the developer has had the prudence to promise jobs to unions, they will be matched by equal numbers of men hoping for the jobs, usually speaking briefly and redundantly in favor. And then the DEP or the PSC votes in favor of the project. ALWAYS.
I've come to the point where I see hearings as a waste of time--they only hold them because they're legally required to do so, the agency people clearly view the speakers as annoying uninformed locals, and after you go to enough of these you see that what transpires at a hearing has no effect on the outcome. Maybe the Cape Cod project will be stopped, but it won't be because the hearing roused the public against the project. Public opinion doesn't matter. It will be because the monied interests are able to bribe decision-makers behind the scenes.
Meanwhile, people here have gotten into nasty infighting when big new wind plants went up in the mountains near the Virginia border--sure enough, a local NIMBY group sprang up to argue that windpower might be good in some abstract sense, but THEIR view should not be affected. Most of these people oppose the horror that is mountaintop removal mining, devastating thousands of acres per site in the southern part of thes state--and most of them continue to use electricity that comes from the grid (in WV, 99% of the electricity comes from coal).

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

to Lizmv, Mjabele, and everyone
Posted by: wesuwi on Jun 11, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I certainly understand about the issue of local control. In fact, as I watched this fight unfold, I waited for a responsible local group to step up to the table and ask the developer what was in it for the Cape & Islands. In my past reporting experience, this has always happened.
The result often is that local people come away with lots of benefits -- perhaps a new public beach, etc. perhaps some sort of contract that guaranteed lower electrical rates, etc.
This has never happened. We have an entity -- the Cape Light Compact -- which could have begun these kinds of positive talks when the project was first discussed six years ago.
However -- several people who sit on the board of that entity have consistently blocked any kind of positive action by that group.
One can only conclude that, rather than negotiating for the average person on Cape Cod who might benefit from the project, the intent was simply to block the project for the benefit of the small group of wealthy who don't want it.
Indeed, as the book explains, when the Cape Wind proponent tried to donate $100,000 to the local community college, that donation was blocked until a local columnist, Francis Broadhurst, wrote about this in the Cape Cod Times. The college's professors raised a stink about the behavior and the college finally got the donation.
This is my issue -- the issue of democracy. Build the project or not, support it or oppose it. That's each individual voter's right.
But the backdoor attempt to thwart democracy and keep this important technology from moving forward is of great concern.
Since this battle began, not one offshore wind turbine has been built in U.S. coastal waters. Other companies are terrified of encountering the kind of outrageous behavior encountered by Cape Wind proponents.

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