Kennedy responds to critics on Cape Cod Wind Farm

[RFKJrNews]

The August 2nd broadcast of "The Daily Show" stirred up yet more controversy over the Cape Wind project off Nantucket Sound in MA, which the Kennedy family strongly opposes.

Critics accuse the Kennedys of being hypocrites for saying they support wind farms, just not one built in *their* backyard. (Might spoil the lovely view from the Hyannisport "compound.") This is a distortion of the facts, yet the MSM continues to misreport and misrepresent the family's correct position on the issue.

In the past, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been most severely attacked over his opposition to the proposed Cape Wind project. After all, critics on both the left and right say, "how can he claim to be such a great environmentalist if he opposes this wind farm?"

The truth of the matter (which the MSM continues to conveniently overlook) is that Kennedy DOES SUPPORT construction of a wind farm in the area, but *opposes the proposed location* off Nantucket Sound, arguing that the environmental impact there would be disastrous to water quality, marine life and local fishermen. He has advocated for the wind farm to be constructed off nearby Otis Air Force Base instead, a proposal put forward by his uncle Ted Kennedy.

This week, Senator Kennedy fired back at the critics in an Op-Ed piece for the Cape Cod Times, explaining *again* why he opposes locating Cape wind off Nantucket:

(EXCERPT)

Nantucket Sound is a national treasure
By EDWARD M. KENNEDY
August 05, 2007

Cape Wind advocates like to caricature their opponents as a few select landowners who care only about preserving the views of Nantucket Sound.

It's a clever and convenient argument, and it's dead wrong.

But I have to hand it to them. By focusing on a few seaside landowners, Cape Wind developers have managed to distract the public from the real issues raised by their proposal: Do the public waters belong to all the people, or can they be seized and exploited by private companies for financial gain?

Cape Wind has been able to avoid a discussion of why not a single town on the Cape and Islands has stepped forward to support the project, or why the local business community has consistently opposed the project through its local chambers of commerce.

It's long past time to take a step back and take a clear-eyed look at the real issues underlying the opposition to the proposal.

First, Nantucket Sound belongs to all of us. Before we hand more than $1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to Cape Wind, we're entitled to be sure that we receive the best possible deal for our land and waters. We need to discuss whether it's in the best interest of the public to allow a private developer to select and essentially seize, for personal profit on a no-bid basis, a 25-square-mile area of Nantucket Sound.

Second, Cape residents deserve to have their concerns addressed. For more than 350 years, Nantucket Sound has been fertile ground for the region's fishing industry. Cape Wind proponents argue that there will be negligible impact, but our fishermen know better....

...Nantucket Sound deserves the same protections that my family and I have fought for — and won — for the Cape Cod National Seashore, the Blackstone River Valley, the Essex National Heritage Area, the Boston Harbor Islands, Stellwagen Bank and many other historic and scenic areas that belong to all the residents of our beautiful commonwealth.

The Sound is a national treasure, and we all have a responsibility to protect it from reckless exploitation.

(Edward M. Kennedy of Hyannisport represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.)

Read the full story here:
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070805/OPINION/708050370/-1/OPINION01&template=printart

I would also encourage everyone to also read WHY Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has opposed Cape Wind's location for years, IN HIS OWN WORDS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserla


Hope this helps to clarify the Kennedys position on this proposed wind farm project. The MSM's disinfo campaign has gone on long enough.

__________________________________________________________________


* Please SIGN THE PETITION to draft RFK Jr. to run for the White House!
http://RFKin2008.com

[monarch]

1. please also read

http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/

and if anyone can post the graphic from that article showing the tremendous area encompassed by this monstrosity, I implore you to do so.

[RFKJrNews]

2. a real eye-opener!

here's the map graphic you requested:








* Please SIGN THE PETITION to draft RFK Jr. into the race for the White House! http://RFKin2008.com

[sandnsea]

40. Here's the graphic

It is huge, I didn't realize either. People need to know this is what the Pacific Northwest coastline is going to look like in a few years, except with wave monstrosities instead of wind. Or maybe both eventually, who knows.

[skids]

3. Except neither of them are environmental scientists...

...they are just saying "disastrous to water quality, marine life and local fishermen" through their ass cheeks. They have no real basis for these claims.

[RFKJrNews]

4. You're welcome...

...to post any hard evidence you have to the contrary here, skids.

Otherwise, it would be fair for us to question which body part you are speaking through...


* Please SIGN THE PETITION to draft RFK Jr. for President;
http://RFKin2008.com

[skids]

7. Sorry it doesn't work that way...

...you don't make an assertion out your ass and then demand it be disproved or at least adequately studied. First you back up your assertion, which has not been done by either of these guys. Instead they made their assertion, and then after it has been adequately studied, they continue to make the same damn assertion as if the study was never conducted.

I am not qualified to assess Cape Wind on my lonesome. However, several very qualified organizations have done so. Like say the seafarer's SIU knows a lot about the needs of fishermen, the Audubon Society knows a great deal about birds, etc. When I compare the list of organizations that has signed off pro and con, the pattern becomes clear -- the only ones apposed are those who are easily influenced by the politicians.

[WhiteTara]

68. wow sounds interesting - link please n/t

[skids]

69. You have to pull it together from various links...

pro...

http://www.capewind.org (their endorsements are scattered throughout the site)

con...

http://www.saveoursound.org/Materials/windspin.pdf

[Uroboros]

5. According to the Cape Wind site...

"Based on the experience of European offshore wind farms, there are 3 characteristics of a site that are considered necessary:

1) Strong wind resource
2) Shallow depths
3) Relatively low ocean storm wave heights

Nantucket Sound may be the only offshore New England site that meets these criteria. Within Nantucket Sound, Horseshoe Shoal is superior to other possible sites because it is outside of shipping channels, ferry routes, and flight paths. Being located offshore Cape Cod and the Islands, Cape Wind would supply wind energy to the fastest growing electric demand region in New England and connecting into a robust electric infrastructure. The US Army Corps of Engineers evaluated 17 sites in New England for their Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Cape Wind, and they found Horseshoe Shoal to be technically, environmentally and economically preferable to the other sites."

So any other proposed site would have to meet the same criteria that led to them choosing Horseshoe Shoal in the first place. Kennedy can propose any other site he wants; but it if doesn't meet the criteria it doesn't mean much.

[beachmom]

14. The first environmental impact report said it would not have a negative

impact on the birds. However, more reports need to be done. I apologize for not having the link on me, but believe me, I have followed this issue. I traveled through northern Germany and saw slews of Wind Farms and was completely sold on the idea. I pointed a few out to my children on our last trip to Germany. They were fascinated. They are completely different from large power lines. They just make you feel peaceful looking at them; that we can take what nature has given us naturally -- wind -- and have it power our homes without damaging the planet.

[MadHound]

6. In other words this is simply more unbacked, unproven psuedo scientific gabble

Designed to convince peope that a wind farm is bad while simulteaneously disguising the NIMBYism of the Kennedy's and their neighbors. A wind farm will not harm the fish or other flora or fauna in the area. All that such a wind farm will do is generate electricity and be a distant sight on the horizon. But God forbid if the Kennedys and other rich folks have to see a wind farm on the horizon:eyes: Sorry, but Kennedy is being a hypocrite on this one simply because of his own selfish interests.

[RFKJrNews]

8. 4.7 miles offshore is not a "distant sight on the horizon"

If you study the map graphic above, you will see that the areas closest to the shoreline are anywhere from 4.7 to 6 miles away.

That's hardly a "distant sight on the horizon."




* Please SIGN THE PETITION to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for President:
http://RFKin2008.com

[Uroboros]

10. This is what it will look like

http://tinyurl.com/62ckl

Based on well explained (at a separate link from that link) computer models. Not invisible mind you; but I wouldn't have a problem with that view of the distant horizon. Most people I'm sure wouldn't I would guess. Unless one spends their days staring at the horizon as opposed to the expensive beach front property.

[MadHound]

19. Five-six miles reduces the size of most things, including turbines

These turbines are three to four hundred feet tall, about one and a half times the size of a cell phone tower. Placed five miles away. Think about it.

I have no sympathy for these people. While the Kennedys and other rich elites are complaining about their precious view being spoiled, the vast majority of the rest of us get to live much closer to such eyesores as cell phone towers, microwave stations and other such things, all due to corporate programs Kennedy has helped enable. Hell, I live out in rural mid Missouri and am within five miles of a comparably sized cell phone tower. I can see it, mainly at night because of the warning light. Sure, I could whine about my view being spoiled, but I realize that this miniscule flaw on the horizon is a worthy trade off for having cell phone service out here.

If Ted is so serious about wind power, then he needs to put his view where his mouth is. Ooo, so there's a wind farm on the horizon, big whoop. Hell, I'm serious enough about wind power myself that I'm putting up a turbine in the near future. And my view of it will be much closer, a matter of five hundred yards, not five mile. And watching that puppy turn and turn, providing myself and others with clean, renewable power, I think that the view will be just fine. Geez, God forbid that these people ever have to live out in the Midwest, where the wide open view is constantly interuppted by windmills, wind turbines, grain towers, etc.:eyes: Their poor eyes.

As far as navigation hazard goes, well the Dutch, Germans, Irish, and others somehow manage to make their way around their ocean wind farms. Ships have for decades now navigated around offshore oil rigs in the Gulf(and which would you rather have, a wind turbine out there, spinning away, producing clean energy, or an oil platform ie a constant source of pollution.

I have no sympathy for these people. This country has got to get off of oil, and the easiest, most effective way to do this is wind. If we wish to stop polluting our world and endangering this entire planet, we've got to find clean ways to generate energy and wind is the one that can fulfill all of our electrical needs. Resorting to tired, disproven rhetoric to protect the precious view for the rich and elite is hypocritical at best, and that Kennedy is leading this charge makes me have even less respect for him and his family.

[beachmom]

24. Amen, MadHound. n/t

[Tellurian]

9. GO Ted and Bobby!

That windfarm would be a spectacular eyesore in the sound and an obstruction for boaters to navigate.

Suggestion:

Kennybunkport, outside the Bush compound.

[beachmom]

15. Whoops -- I misread your post. Nevermind.

[Tellurian]

21. And Teddy who has a problem with Kerry ...

Nice stab in the back to Teddy!

Thanks, JK. Ted, your bud who supported you throughout your campaign, and this is how you repay him?
JK doesn't think there is anything wrong in his support of a *NO-BID* contractor? When everyone on the Cape is against the location of the Wind Power stations that will forever change the beauty an landscape from all points of Cape Cod and the Islands?..

I hope JK isn't going to ask for Ted's reelection support. Just so he isn't surprised at Ted's response of a big nay! Payback is a bitch!

[beachmom]

23. Actually, I misread your post. I thought you were saying to put it

in front of Kerry's property in Nantucket -- he has already said he was fine with that, because he doesn't mind the looks of them. Kerry has remained neutral on this subject, saying we should wait for all of the environmental impact reports to come back.

Very ignorant post you just wrote though. IMO, Kerry is being too nice to Kennedy on this issue.

70% of the residents of Mass. are for this project. I guess you don't care about combatting global warming OR your hatred of Kerry has colored you on this topic.

[Tellurian]

29. Why? Kennedy has a legitimate gripe.

Kerry should be supporting a friend that has supported him, doncha think?

[MadHound]

34. Sorry, but Kennedy doesn't have any sort of legitimacy of any sort

His "spoiled view" arguement is belied by the actual computer simulations. His "navigation hazard" arguement is belied by the ability of other countries to easily navigate their wind farms. This is nothing more than hypocritical NIMBYism by the elites.

And with the threat of global warming swamping their precious beachfront property, you think that they would welcome anything that would substantially reduce our dependence on oil. But no, these "ardent enviromentalists" are opposing this:eyes:

This isn't being positioned on a whim, it is being positioned so as to catch the most amount of wind, produce the most amount of energy while harming the least amount of wildlife.

[Tellurian]

44. Who are the bidders for the Wind contract?

[MadHound]

47. Could you clarify your question a bit?

As far as I know, the bidding process for the potential energy hasn't started yet. My question, why does it matter?

[OldTymeDem]

64. Haliburton! nt

[karynnj]

52. Great way to decide policy -just support your friends

Somehow this sounds more Bush than Democratic. Hillary doesn't support everyone who ever supported her - if its not the right thing to do - I would assume.

[leez34]

18. -

Anyone who is against an otherwise positive measure because it is an "eyesore" is, by definition, an asshole.

[Tellurian]

22. Anyone that doesn't live in this area and doesn't know what they're talking about...

is a deluded, ignorant, asshole!

[Pawel K]

32. Yeah, clean energy that will help protect the enviroment for all of us is bad because...

those poor rich people that visit their vacation homes a couple times a year will suffer from a small eye sore. I guess do what we always do, throw a huge coal plant in some poor person's backyard, none of you will have a problem with that and since poor people in this country don't really have any representation nobody will give a shit.

And you are a HRC supporter, who'd a thunk it. :eyes:

[leez34]

33. -

Jesus. I don't live in Massachusetts, so I just don't know what I'm talking about. I must have had to look up "eyesore" on dictionary.com! Where do I come up with these talking points anyway?

You said it would be an eyesore and used this as a defense of Kennedy's position (I happen to think Kennedy's environmental concerns are justified, but if he uses the word "eyesore," the gloves are off). What the hell does living in Massachusetts have to do with anything? There are places in WI that wouldn't be conducive to wind farms either, but not because they'd be eyesores!

[Tellurian]

46. Kennnedy suggested an alternative site...

near the now closed Otis AF Base... He's not against WF's.

[Pawel K]

48. What right does he have to select an alternative site?

Is he a power engineer? Does he know what the hell he is talking about? Who did he consult on this location?

You don't think the people that chose this location originally chose it because it would be the best location? What, do you think they wanted it there just to piss Kennedy off? There is a reason this site was chosen The reason Kennedy and his rich neighboors don't want it there is not only hypocrticial it is immoral in my opinion.

[Marrah_G]

50. It's not about that. It is about our fishing and boating industry here

But fuck it right? The last of our once successful fishermen can go flip burgers or ring up your crap at Wal-mart.

It's SO much easier to flex and blame it on rich hypocrites. That hypocrite that has always worked hard middle class workers.

You assume he hasn't spoken to engineers about alternatives. I would bet you are wrong on that. Ted is a very intelligent Senator.

[Pawel K]

54. Show me the studies or research he and you are pointing to.

What harm will this do to the fishing industry? We are talking about a fairly small area in the grand scheme of things, there are still going to be plenty of other places to fish.

But if you show me any legitimate research that backs up anything Kennedy said I might change my mind on this, until then I still think he's a hypocrite and he is making shit up to cover that fact up. If this was going to be built anywhere else I strongly believe Kennedy would not have any of these same "concerns". This is another simple case of NIMB.

[Marrah_G]

56. I'll have to get back to you later on it

I'm at work now, but when I get home from work I'll put up some information as to why there are concerns.

[Pawel K]

60. Sounds good. nt

[leez34]

61. -

Please point out where I said Kennedy was against wind farms. My issue was with you saying that the wind farm being an "eyesore" was a deciding factor in rejecting the proposed site.

Kennedy can have whatever opinion he wants, but it shouldn't be based on how something looks.

[Marrah_G]

49. This is more then just an eyesore matter

This is an area with a massive amount of boating and fishing traffic. It's hard enough to navigate in a storm without having to dodge huge windmills. This is one of the countries biggest fisheries.

I am all for wind power, but this needs to be studied further and other areas looked at.

[annabanana]

11. I KNEW there was more to it than we were getting...

Corpomedia is always looking for a way to make democrats look craven and ridiculous...

[beachmom]

16. Strange alliances: corpmedia AND environmental groups in Mass.

This is a positive project for our planet. The Kennedys have put their own self interest ahead of combatting global warming.

[beachmom]

12. I disagree with Ted Kennedy on this issue. Last year he tried to

kill Cape Winds in the U.S. Senate with a deal with .... Ted Stevens (ugh). It was unbelievably inappropriate to deal with a LOCAL issue by trying to torpedo it on the federal level like that. Luckily, the junior senator from Mass. saved the senior senator from making a complete fool of himself, and killed the amendment.

An environmental impact report is being made right now to explore every impact Cape Winds will have on the environment, including the wildlife. I am confident that when that report is completed, Cape Winds will move forward. The Kennedys are a disappointment to me on this issue. If they expect other Americans to sacrifice in order to stop global warming, then they need to be role models for that sacrifice. They didn't try to get involved and work with the people of Cape Winds -- they declared war on them. And that's wrong.

[jmp]

13. Looks like a classic case of NIMBY to me. (nm)

...

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yep

[sneakythomas]

20. I have to comment on this

One of my personal hot buttons.

"Do the public waters belong to all the people, or can they be seized and exploited by private companies for financial gain?"

Perhaps if Senator Kennedy feels strongly about this he could introduce a constitutional amendment overturning the Kelo decision. Given that abomination private companies can take whatever they want if they talk a couple of government officials into it.

[notundecided]

25. You wouldn't put a wind farm in Yellowstone; why do that to Nantucket Sound

[MadHound]

26. Umm, Nantucket Sound is not a national park

You know, you think that with the threat of global warming inundating their beachside homes, residents and supposedly ardent enviromentalists like the Kennedys would welcome a wind farm. But apparently they would rather have their unspoiled view rather than do the right thing. Hypocrites all.

[beastieboy]

27. They have built these in other countries, I actually think they are aesthetically OK.

If we are going to be serious about alternative energy, we need to make sacrifices. I work on the Cape and I want the turbines.

[polichick]

35. That's the attitude we have to adopt...

It's all a matter of how you look at it ~ we should think of it as a work of art that's going to help save our asses!

I grew up on the Gulf of Mexico, and I'd rather see wind farms than oil platforms.

[Major Hogwash]

28. Great post, man.

I just had an argument with a Republican last week over this issue. He must have seen the Daily Show and didn't like what he saw. I missed that particular show, but knew Kennedy wasn't being a hypocrite about it, so I defended him as well as I could.

Then I asked the guy if he liked the idea of a new nuclear power plant being built in South Idaho and he hadn't even heard of it, even though it's been in the papers for several months now. He asked me if I was an environmentalist and I responded by saying, "well, yeah, aren't we all?"

[Pawel K]

37. Just because the OP says its true doesn't mean its true

Kennedy is lying to cover his ass. There is no backup for anything he said. This is a case of rich people not wanting to spoil their view. Its the ultimate example of hypocracy, just because it is happening on our "side" doesn't mean we should try to justify it with bullshit.

[Major Hogwash]

57. Well, you know me, I trust Democrats like Kennedy more than people on these forums.

So, now you know what I think of your bullshit.

[mrgorth]

30. Sorry

I'm a Kennedy fan but this doesn't pass the smell test.

[Marrah_G]

51. Talk to the local fishermen here

[Totally Committed]

55. A lot of the local fishermen are really concerned about the wind farm

making the waters very choppy by changing the windspeeds at the surface of the water. I know a couple that are afraid they could actually change the currents. Both thiese things could really interfere with the breeding of the fish and crustaceans in this very fertile fishing ground. (At least that's how I understand it.)

I, myself, do not know enough about the science behind either side's arguments to have a sure enough opinion to condemn either side. My mind says YES to windpower, but my heart (in this case) supports the fishermen in the area. So, I go back and forth.

TC

[glitch]

31. I disagree with RFKjr on this one. That almost never happens, but it does happen sometimes.

I also disagree with his opinion on Arnold Schwarzeneggar. That's two. Ted I disagree with slightly more often, but that's also rare.

I still love them both.

[Totally Committed]

41. Ditto, ditto, and..... ditto.

There is no "perfect" candidate. Seeing that we are ALL humans here (Okay... most of us ;) ) I don't think a well-informed and intelligent person will ever agree with a candidate 100%. I come very close with Bobby. Very close.

TC

[glitch]

43. I don't even agree with myself 100% of the time,

So I've had to learn to be tolerant. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

45. I agree.

Loved your post! :hi: <<<< right back atcha!

TC

[intaglio]

36. Over here the building of this wind farm

would attract a lot of opposition.

Why?

First those shallows are probably a prime breeding area for crustacea, and fish in general;

2nd it looks to being in what us socialist in the UK would term an area of outstanding natural beauty;

3rd the company sounds a tad disingenuous about that site being the only suitable one, there are a lot of factors in play here.

Just sayin'

[Pawel K]

39. How will this affect the breeding of fish?

I'll give you that, it takes away a bit of the natural beauty of that small tiny area. But why does that matter when it be 1000 times better for everyone and everything than building a coal power plant.

[intaglio]

66. These WTs are on foundations not floating and anchored

That means pilings will have to be sunk to a considerable depth. This will polute by kicking up mud and reducing sunlight penetration, introduce lubricants, pulverised rock and noise into what is likely to be a fragile environment. Shellfish beds will be covered, plankton will be reduced, the new surface of the shallows will be essentially sterile.

The disturbance to the sediments will continue during the building.

After construction the new towers will interfere with the tidal flows and will create turbulence (look at a flag on a flagpole on a breezy day). Because water is so much more dense and has a much higher viscosity than air this turbulence will set in at the slower speeds of tidal flows. I don't have charts for the area so could only check high and low water depths. The difference between them can be as much as 3.7 fathoms (20 feet or 6 mtrs for us Europeans). This leads me to guess that typical peak tidal velocities will be of the order of 8kts - but feel free to correct me. Turbulence causes scouring and will affect the silting of local ports and marshes.

I suspect - though again I could be wrong that the real reason for choosing Nantucket sound is that the developers can build the cheapest possible turbines by keeping them sheltered from the effects of Atlantic storms.

[Totally Committed]

42. Very well-said, and actually a perspective I never considered

in just that way.

Thanks!

TC

[Marrah_G]

53. People are jumping on Ted without understanding what he is saying

This will certainly hurt our fisheries and fishing industry, one that has already been diminished quite a bit. Boat traffic that will now have to keep out of a large area of our very best fishing and boating areas.

[beastieboy]

59. If you can't see a 200 foot wind turbine you shouldn't be driving a boat.

[Marrah_G]

62. Not sure what that has to do with fishing boats not being able to fish there

[Totally Committed]

63. They can't fish if there are no fish.

That's what I'm led to believe a lot of fishermen believe will happen.

TC

[sandnsea]

38. I'm monitoring our ocean wave technology

People don't understand that with every man-made alteration, there comes a consequence. There are several different types of wave technology. I hope everyone thinks that the best technology should be the long term choice. There is location, which right now is in the crabbing beds. An industry may well be destroyed here, which has to be considered. If the crab proliferate, will that bring in other predators? And will those predators alter some other sea species? We don't know. What if one of these machines is ripped lose in a storm, or comes apart. Is there a clean-up strategy in place? Who pays?

There are questions that you don't think about unless the project is actually going to go in YOUR backyard. People should help get every question answered instead of grandstanding. It's a complete waste of time.

[beastieboy]

58. There has been a ton of research on this and the company has been very forthcoming

with the answers to those questions.

[sandnsea]

70. Yeah, so have the wave companies

If you want to believe the fantasy that they did studies and everything is rosy and don't worry your little head about it - kind of like the Murray miners.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Why does Kennedy think it'd be better off the AF base...

instead of in view of the Kennedy mansion?

[hannah]

67. wind

I think the key word that Senator Kennedy is saying is "National Treasure." If I am not mistaken, the Bush administration has been responsible for destroying many "National Treasures" in many countries. including our own.
It's what they do.