Wind farm merits a positive look
10 November 2004
It comes down to the view.
Thirty-four months in the making and almost 3,800 pages
long, the environmental review of
Spinning blades would kill thousands of birds each year, foes screamed. Endangered species would be wiped out.
Not true. Worst case, the wind farm might kill 364 birds a year. That's about the same number Dick Cheney and his friends kill on a hunting trip (John Kerry as well, for that matter). Endangered species will be unaffected.
The shellfish and fish that populate the sound? "No measurable effects." During construction, some species might move elsewhere; afterward, they'll come right back. How about navigation? No question, there's a risk of the inebriated and the careless bumping into one of the 130 turbines, as there is with any of the sandbars, buoys and other obstructions. But foghorns combined with more attentive boaters, as the statement gently puts it, should eliminate most problems.
Pollution? None.
Strange magnetic fields? Nope. Disruption
of telecommunications? Won't happen. Sport fishing? Unaffected. And, contrary to the Beacon Hill Institute's absurd claim,
the wind farm would have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the region's life
and economy. It would create 391 full-time jobs. It would diversify the
region's energy mix. It would improve the area's health by reducing the need
for polluting power plants. It wouldn't hurt property values. It would boost
the
No wonder
So what's the problem?
Aesthetics. The turbines would be four miles off shore. On a clear day, the white towers would be visible, looking something like a small parade of sailboats on a distant horizon. Some will find them attractive; others, notably those with coastal properties, claim they will not.
There have been many ironies attached to this project, not the least of which has been the motivations behind those who oppose it: It's the wealthy vs. everyone else. Karl Marx may be largely discredited, but some of what he observed was correct: Economic class matters. How else can one explain Democratic powerhouse Ted Kennedy allying himself with Republican Gov. Mitt Romney to oppose the plan? How else can one explain Reebok's Paul Fireman - head of a company that ostensibly promotes the use of green energy - pouring money into efforts to defeat the area's most significant renewable energy project? It's classic NIMBYism (that is, Not In My Back Yard). Better, the plutocrats apparently think, to keep coal and oil plants running - and polluting - elsewhere, than to alter their pristine views.
The environmental statement is only in draft. Six months or so from now, after hearings and public comment, the Corps will issue a final version. After that, perhaps, construction can begin.
That's a big "perhaps," however. Gordon hopes the
environmental impact statement will change many minds and he is probably right.
Yet some are inflexible. The
That's too bad. As the Conservation Law Foundation noted
about Kennedy, "He needs to look beyond the narrow interests that seem to
be motivating his current opposition to the project." So too should the
rest of the state's political elite. Their talk about energy independence and
reducing global warming so far has been just that - talk.