Pin It
MNN.COM›Earth Matters›

Wilderness & Resources

Political Habitat: Not in my backyard

You'll never guess who's fighting to stop the construction of a wind farm off the shores of Cape Cod. Environmentalists.

By Peter DykstraWed, Apr 29 2009 at 5:52 AM EST
 8

WIND AND FIRE: In this file photo, a wind turbine stands generating power next to the Hull, Mass., High School in the shadow of Boston. Nearby Cape Cod is in its own battle to build the nation's first offshore wind farm. (Photo: Stephan Savoia/Associated Press)
 
Sometimes, to be a good environmentalist, you have to stop saving the earth for a decade or so and focus on fighting with other environmentalists. Herein lies the sad, sad story of Cape Wind.
 
In 2001, a Massachusetts entrepreneur named Jim Gordon had a grand idea to help the environment, help stop global warming, and maybe make some money in the process: A wind farm in Nantucket Sound, the body of water between Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket.
 
That Gordon ran into instant opposition on an environmental project in the early days of the Bush administration should not be surprising. But the opposition didn’t come from the Bush administration. It came from environmentalists. And some of them were mighty big environmentalists.
 
As CBS News anchor in the 1960s and 1970s, Walter Cronkite was “The Most Trusted Man in America”. From his retirement perch on Martha’s Vineyard, he told CNN in 2002 that the windmills more than fifteen miles away, barely visible on the clearest of days, would be an eyesore. “They're big, ugly things sitting out there in the middle of what should be the pristine waters.”
 
Robert Kennedy Jr. waded in as well, saying the wind farm, just six miles from Hyannisport and the Kennedy compound, could spell doom for Nantucket Sound. In the same CNN piece, he told reporter Mike Schulder, “It's going to injure a very, very valuable tourist industry. And it's going to destroy a resource, which is really part of the Commons. It's part of our nation's history. It's part of the maritime and nautical tradition of Massachusetts.”
 
Hmmm. The Most Trusted Man in America, and one of the nation’s most distinguished and dedicated environmentalists didn’t like what Jim Gordon was up to. But Gordon didn’t let that take the wind out of his proposed turbines. Work on the 130 windmills, generating about three-quarters of the electric needs of the Cape, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, would press ahead. (The Cape and Islands now get their power from a coal plant and a nuclear plant.)
 
Cronkite dropped his opposition to the project in 2003 after a meeting with Gordon. Robert Kennedy Jr. has been virtually silent on it for the past couple of years, but his employer, the Natural Resources Defense Council, is signed up as an endorser. Cape Wind navigated through a multi-year process of reviews, challenges, comment periods, hearings, impact statements, and permit applications with both the state and federal governments. The process is looking good for Cape Wind, but eight years after Jim Gordon rolled out his vision, the project is still on the drawing board. And the opponents may have lost some star power, but they’re not giving up.
 
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, tosses in the kitchen sink in opposing it: The wind farm, they say, will hurt marine mammals, fish, fishermen, ferries, migratory birds, and maybe even aircraft (they’re citing research that the turbines could affect radar). Powerful legislators, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, are still on record opposing the project. And President Obama’s nominee to run the Federal Aviation Administration, J. Randolph Babbitt, worked as a consultant for the Cape Wind opponents. As FAA boss, Babbitt could have a hand in any federal action on the radar issue, but he’s promised to recuse himself. The opponents have strongly hinted at more litigation, so the ending may not be in sight for Jim Gordon and Cape Wind.
 
(Note that the wind turbines won’t really be in sight, either. They’re almost six miles offshore from the closest land point. Cape Wind has posted some simulated images of what the wind farm will look like from land, and the towers barely peek above the horizon.)
 
Public opinion is swinging Cape Wind’s way, too.The Opinion Research Corporation has polled on behalf of the Civil Societies Institute, a Massachusetts think tank. Support for the project from Cape and Islands residents rose from 58% in 2007 to 74% last year; statewide, 86% of Massachusetts residents polled support the project, up from 84% the previous year.
 
The Association to Preserve Cape Cod, the area’s oldest and largest environmental group, just endorsed the Cape Wind proposal this month. Its board voted unanimously in favor, although a previous president quit the organization over the issue. The APCC isn’t completely convinced that Cape Wind won’t have some environmental impact. But President Susan Shephard pointed out that it’s a little arrogant to think that preserving Cape Cod can be separated from preserving the earth. The value and need for wind power outweighs any aesthetic loss or environmental risk.
 
So the sad story of Cape Wind may have a happy ending for Jim Gordon. But it’s still sad that it’s gone on for so long, with no result to date to show for it. Let’s hope there are more Jim Gordons out there. And let’s hope they’re not scared off by how difficult it is to do something positive.
 
***
Peter Dykstra is the former executive producer of CNN's Science, Tech and Weather Unit. He writes three columns for MNN: Media Mayhem on Mondays, Political Habitat on Wednesdays, and Green States on Fridays. (Yes, he writes a lot.) 
You might also like:
Related Topics: Political Habitat, Water, Wind Power

Comments

Follow this conversation
Add your comment
View:

anonymous
ClarkeBeryl32 03/11/2010 17:14 PM

It is perfect that people are able to get the business loans moreover, that opens completely new chances.

anonymous
nagasaki 05/15/2009 09:26 AM

I don't find this debate sad, but it is difficult. Building windmills on every ridge top and off the shores of every beach is not an answer to global warming, and we should be honest in talking about it.We need to use less energy, and conservation is by far the most cost effective method of combating climate change. To say there is no place so special that you cannot install a large industrial energy facility there is not far from the arguments the coal industry uses to justify mountain top.... More

anonymous
Barbara Durkin 05/03/2009 13:55 PM

This is more of a sad sad story for taxpayers. Cape Wind, after 8 long years of contentious battles, is not economically viable as a proposed threat to public safety, and wildlife at the brink of extinction.

We all want technically feasible and affordable renewable energy. Cape Wind is not technically feasible as GE discontinued the 3.6 MW wind turbine that 17 agencies have been studying the effects of for many years. If the public knew the truth, the public would be calling their.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 04/30/2009 23:51 PM

As an environmentalist and Cape native, I've had a hard time with this issue and have swayed back and forth. Although I understand the risks of implementation on various aviary and aquatic species, the overarching benefits convince me that this project is a step we need to take towards a healthier and more sustainable future.

The bottom line is that we need to change our power sources which have been degrading the state of our environment for far too long. Why aren't more people.... More

anonymous
Brian 04/30/2009 14:55 PM

These windmills will most definitely be seen from the beach clear as day. I find it so interesting that so many people weigh in on this subject without having all of their facts correct and I wonder have they even been to the Cape and Islands. Ever been on Nantucket Sound? I'm sure if it was Fenway Park or Wrigley Field or perhaps Mount Rushmore or Yellowstone there would be very few people in favor of the project. Nantucket Sound is just as precious a landmark. So many people think that the.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 04/30/2009 13:18 PM

In all fairness, there are some serious environmental concerns about offshore wind projects. This isn't just an aesthetic issue.

We know very little about whether offshore wind turbines will kill, displace or disrupt birds and marine life. Nobody has really studied this much so what's being proposed is a giant experiment. And unlike with land-based wind projects, you can't do post-construction mortality studies because there's no easy way to collect carcasses.

And may I suggest.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 04/29/2009 16:04 PM

As a LEED AP, avid supporter of renewable energy and one who thinks that wind turbines have a curiously beautiful aesthetic quality to them, I was shocked by my initial reaction to seeing the simulated images. Not positive. There is a certain quality to a seemingly endless horizon that when disrupted by a wind park loses a great deal of its beauty. I love the view of them lining a hillside as seen as the backdrop to the Tour of California, but on the water as seen from my beach front home,.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 04/29/2009 08:27 AM

Windmills aren't quite the fix-all everyone makes them out to be. Everybody wants them in the prairie, but nobody cares about the animals they may possibly drive to extinction. Prairie species evolved w/a fear of tall structures (due to raptors), introducing these would fragment the habitat.

Also, I wouldn't want my local economy negatively impacted by something that all in all doesn't produce much power. Just fire up a nuclear reactor, if managed competently they're great.

Add your comment

Sign in with one of these accounts or just add your comment below.
Used only for emailed comments and will not be displayed with your post
Notify me with an email when other people comment on this article.
The posting of advertisement, profanity or personal attacks is prohibited.
Click here to review our Terms of Use

EDITORS' PICKS

tease to asteroids

tease to pet facials

tease to emotional eating

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT