Cape & Islands News

HMMMM Seems like when you ask people who might be more informed about the capelandgrab project, like the people living on the cape, the results are a little different then when you ask people living in the Berkshires. I wonder why??????? that other survey that was touted here was such a sham. I surprised capecodtoday put this up as a headline! the first story that I have seen them put up, that was not pro capewind.

that was good Capri, I guess Capelandgrab could buy the result for this survey, like they did for the other one by they had tailored by CSI.

I wonder if the capewind poll results (CSI) steered Deval and Gabrieli the wrong way, with tilted results. Also by mentioning capewind in their ads vs just mentioning wind energy in general could backfire too. These results seem to be a positive for Reilly.

I love how polls are only deemed accurate & scientific when they agree with your beliefs/win one for your side. When the majority disagrees, well then, there has to be something wrong with it, right?

In response to Stopcapewind's comment -- it wasn't just the CSI poll that showed strong public support for Cape Wind, polls by the State House News Service and University of NH came back with similar numbers. Anyone who doubts there is abundant support for the project in the state as a whole is engaged in wishful thinking. Surely you don't think Chris Gabrieli announced his support for Cape Wind if he thought it would cost him votes, do you?

As for the Cape Codder poll, I think the most likely scenario for these numbers was an orchestrated campaign on the part of the Alliance without the same being done by Cape Wind or Clean Power Now.

has Gallup or any of the other professional organizations ever been commissioned to do a scientific polls of people's opinion regarding Cape Wind? there are even polling centers capable of doing that more cheaply at various universities, http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/. a complete list is available at: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stpolisc.html

The Aesthetic Dissonance of Industrial Wind Machines by Jon Boone, an except;

“There are significant losses in the process of producing wind energy at industrial scales, as the furor about erecting 130 large wind turbines in Nantucket Sound suggests. But because time seems to be running out on fossil fuels and the lure of non-polluting windpower is so seductive, otherwise sensible people are now promoting windpower initiatives at any cost, without investigating the potential negative consequences—with no apparent knowledge of even recent environmental history. Some see in the shape of wind turbines the very symbol of “conspicuous non-consumption,” despite evidence that they rather conspicuously betoken rapacious consumption. And many have scorned those who oppose windplants near their communities as NIMBYs who selfishly oppose progress.”

Jon Boones words in this paragraph, for me, frame the argument against putting Cape Wind to a general vote, as affirmative votes would be cast for a panacea.

The less people know about Cape Wind, the more they support it.

The Aesthetic Dissonance of Industrial Wind Machines
Jon Boone's essay, The Aesthetic Dissonance of Industrial Wind Machines, was published in Contemporary Aesthetics on September 28, 2005.

http://www.stopillwind.org/

go to: document downloads and scroll down for this essay to read full content.

For a BALANCED VIEWPOINT... I strongly suggest interested parties to read Yuriko Saito's rebuttal to Jon Boone's critique... Dated August 2005 in the same publication: 'Contemporary Aesthetics'...

You will find it interesting & revealing as Saito addresses each of Boone's "challanges":

- Questions of Effectiveness
- Harm to Humans and Non-Humans
- The financial incentive
- Past examples
- Challange to Enviormental Aesthetics

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=321

The more people know about Barbara Durkins motives for opposing Cape Wind... The more they agree:

She is a shill for the NIMBY crowd @ the Dal'liance, the EGANS and MIHOS... On the Board of Directors.

"Cape Wind, if built, would create enormous problems yet contribute no meaningful energy to the New England grid. As I have said often, it's symbolic of our continual flirtation with the forces of ignorance and greed, not a more enlightened energy future. As an environmentalist, I'm furious about how anyone concerned about the future of the planet would support such a Rube Goldbergesque pretension."

Jon Boone

Stephen, your repeatedly calling me a schill, does not make it true-as repeatedly calling a dog a cat does not make it one. You imply that windpower detractors, or Cape Wind detractors, fall into two categories, NIMBYs or schills. I suggest that you consider that Jon Boone is neither NIMBY nor a shill, and I am not a NIMBY or a schill.

"Industrial wind is a faith-based initiative, wishful thinking at its worst." Jon Boone, again, and I agree with him.

For a BALANCED VIEWPOINT... Interested parties should read Yuriko Saito's rebuttal to Jon Boone's critique... Dated August 2005 in the same publication: 'Contemporary Aesthetics'...

You will find it enlightening & revealing as Saito addresses each of Boone's "challanges":

- Questions of Effectiveness
- Harm to Humans and Non-Humans
- The financial incentive
- Past examples
- Challange to Enviormental Aesthetics

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=321

Agree with Jon Boone all you want Barbara...

He is a wannabe NIMBY... And,
You are still a shill representing NIMBY's.

Stephen:

In Jon Boone's words, Yuriko Saito's rebuttal to his essay, "was feckless, inaccurate, and filled non sequiturs."

I have a general question, and I invite any person willing or capable of answering it to please respond:

Are the vast public subsidies which may redound to Cape Wind, which have been estimated to cover nearly 80 percent of the project's lifetime costs, indexed to reductions in carbon emissions?

Chuck, talk to this woman will you? Had my fill of BS for the day.

Mr. Kleekamp:

Would you please answer this question?

Are the vast public subsidies which may redound to Cape Wind, which have been estimated to cover nearly 80 percent of the project's lifetime costs, indexed to reductions in carbon emissions?

See... No one wants to communicate with you anymore Barbara.

You haven't been nice...

Haven't been honest and up front about your relationships with the EGANS & MIHOS...

And now, now that you have exhausted your attempts to fearmonger about the Bald Eagles... Which you have failed to provide evidence that this species uses Horshshoe Shoals as a prefered migratory flyway...

You once again... Feel the need to attack the fact: The Federal Government, as well as the State of Massachusetts... Is offering tax credits & subsidies for GREEN ENERGY projects such as CAPE WIND.

You want to make it out to be less than honorable and good for the community at large for a developer to say: "YES... I will accept and participate in the cooperative effort to offset & provide some balance to the overwhelming dependency on fossil fuels to provide electricity for us."

Too bad...

The more we learn about Barbara Durkins reasons for objecting to Cape Wind...

The more we agree with the logical enviormental reasoning that support the project.

WHY CAPE WIND MAKES NO SENSE

"Altogether, taxpayers would subsidize Cape Wind to the tune of $72 million a year, passed on to the consumer as higher electricity rates. If it happened, Cape Cod residents' electricity bills would go up by $440 per year. Cape Wind needs the tax and energy subsidies in order to achieve a 20 percent rate of return, a requirement to secure financing for a high risk, new-technology offshore wind farm.

The more we examined Cape Wind's economic assumptions, the more the risks concerned us. If the political climate changed, the government could abolish tax and energy credits. Cape Wind's rate of return would drop to 7 percent. Moreover, the analysis did not include the estimated $50 million it would cost to upgrade the transmission lines from Mid-Cape to the Cape Cod Canal. Furthermore, through skillful lobbying, Cape Wind managed to avoid federal lease bonus payments, royalties and deposits for demolition upon abandonment of the project, required by the Department of Interior for all offshore oil and gas projects to operate in federal waters. This loophole is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

As I thought the project too risky, I declined Gordon's offer to invest."

William Koch

Barbara, you are not a shill. Windsmart, let's leave the name-calling on the playground and be a little more mature. Trust me, there are many, many people who oppose Cape Wind, regardless of where they live or who they know.

The only reason Jim Gordon is so doggedly pursuing this project (at great expense) is because he presumes it will make him alot of money. He is not, I am quite sure, doing it for the greater good; to decrease pollution, to offer an alternative energy source, or to benefit the public with lower electric bills. The fact that he has proposed the construction of a fossil fuel burning facility elsewhere in the state exposes him from behind his green mask.

"Tilting at Windmills", the Bill Koch article that Barbara cites is a source I refer people to when they ask about why I oppose Cape Wind. His firm exhaustively researched the project years ago, when approached as a potential investor and I trust their findings. I'll take Koch vs. Gordon any day of the week...

On Cape Wind Incentives

There are only two government incentives for Cape Wind. Both are “iffy”.

The federal production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh ends in 2007 and it pays only for 10 years.

Would you bet that congress will renew it? Would you deny all wind power this incentive or only Cape Wind?

By the way, the energy bill provides the same credit for new nuclear plants. You’ll love that.

The MA renewable portfolio standard energy certificates (RECs) currently are priced at $53/MWh. When Cape Wind comes on line, it will flood the commodities market and the price will fall as in Texas at $14/MWh.

And, recent efforts in the MA legislature to amend the law to allow old hydro and C&D waste will collapse the price next to zero as it did in CT and ME.

Again, would you deny whatever MA RECs bring to new renewable energy projects as an incentive to build, or just Cape Wind?

As you can see, neither are guaranteed. Yet Mr. Gordon continues to pursue his quest for all of us.

Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp

A note on Bill Koch

You may or may not be interested in my response to Bill Koch as posted in my Footnotes Blog of 6/20/06. In any case it starts...

A guy with a Ph.D. from MIT ought to know better—that is, unless he’s the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and a fossil fuel magnate to boot. That being the case, however, reasonable people cannot let his disparaging prognostications about the economic viability of wind power (William Koch, Wall Street Journal, 5/22/06) pass without a response more grounded in reality.

Mr. Koch declares that the economic uncertainties of Cape Wind Associates' proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm off Cape Cod will make the venture unviable.

But such risks should only be of concern to the private developer and his backers, not Mr. Koch. The wind power has to be sold into a competitive market at a profit or the venture becomes bankrupt. So what are the risks and benefits to the public? Read on. (the blog ref.)

Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp

Mr. Kleekamp:

As to your comment:

"Mr. Koch declares that the economic uncertainties of Cape Wind Associates' proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm off Cape Cod will make the venture unviable. But such risks should only be of concern to the private developer and his backers, not Mr. Koch."

Please refer to the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership letter of protest regarding the developer's continuing misinformation campaign regarding their fishing grounds of August 23, 2006 on www.windstop.org

It is preposterous to suggest that the risks inherent with a positive determination regarding Cape Wind's application would be born solely by Jim Gordon. Refer to the public comments of the USACE hearings; and consider expressed concerns about this proposal include more than Jim Gordon's.

We have novices seeking to deploy nascent technology in a hostile marine environment and even they admit this is experimental, and attempt to justify that this is a good place to conduct their industrial experiment. "Wishful thinking at it's worst," as Jon Boone would say.

Mr. Kleekamp:

As to your comment:

"As you can see, neither are guaranteed. Yet Mr. Gordon continues to pursue his quest for all of us."

I tend to agree with Bobcat87:

"The only reason Jim Gordon is so doggedly pursuing this project (at great expense) is because he presumes it will make him alot of money. He is not, I am quite sure, doing it for the greater good; to decrease pollution, to offer an alternative energy source, or to benefit the public with lower electric bills. The fact that he has proposed the construction of a fossil fuel burning facility elsewhere in the state exposes him from behind his green mask."

Thank you, Capri, and Bobcat, green as the color of money Is the major attraction here.

Developers can make all the money they want, but not everywhere they want.

The ad hoc review is the cart before the horse. We don't have zoning of the OCS, and Jim Gordon's intention is to capitalize on our lack of preparedness as will others if we let this precedent setting project reach approval.

Barbara and Capri,
the gaping hole in zoning regs of the OCS is indeed the crux of the debate, IMO. Who is Jim Gordon? Why should he be afforded the priviledge to use what belongs to all of us for his own personal gain? Do I oppose wind power? Not necessarily, particularly if well-sited, intelligently engineered and tested, and responsibly maintained (and dismantled if necessary).

Do I oppose one guy trying to grab and deface a chunk of the ocean that belongs to us all, essentially for free, so that he may generate multi millions of dollars for himself and his cronies, ABSOLUTELY.

And by the way, as it stands now, he can walk away if it doesn't work, and the rest of us will pay (and pay) to have his twisted vision dismantled...

It's quite ironic to see all the environmentalist align themselves with Jim Gordon, who's polluted this country for years, while lining his pockets the whole time. Now they want to be in bed with him. Now he wants to destroy Nantucket sound, I wonder how much money is enough for him.

We should all be concerned about the risks associated with the world's largest industrial offshore experiment.

Jim Gordon’s pornographic proposal by design arouses his lust for money. To this developer, avian mortalities up to 6,600 per year by Cape Wind would represent the cost of doing business. I consider this position unlawful, immoral and reckless.

Nantucket Sound would be lost to current trades of our cultural heritage, ongoing since before Gosnold’s travels when he named the place because of the abundance of Cod fish.

There are no victims, only volunteers. By what legal right would a developer seize the Sound?

Cape Wind is private interests' attack on more than a way of life. It is akin to a proposed “taking” of private land; in this case, Nantucket Sound, an “amphibious resource region” where “there exists an intimate relationship between the inhabitants of the area and the surrounding waters,” as noted historical geographer Dr. Louis DeVorsey concluded that the residents took their livelihood from the sea.
475 U.S. 89 101

Stopcape Wind:

Should we call these environmentalists pseudo enviromentalists if they're aligned with Jim Gordon?

Jim and Dan Boone are enviromentalists who provide educational resources for people "to understand the wind industry as an enterprise inspired by faith and fueled by that lethal combination of ignorance and greed." They have produced, or Jon has produced, the documentary about how massive windplants affect ordinary people, 'Life Under a Windplant,' 20,000 DVDs are in circulation here, in Europe and Australia.

The website is
stopillwind.org; and they are authentic environmentalists, who expresses these issues from the true green perspective, not that artificial money shade of green perspective.

They oppose Cape Wind.

Example of cut & paste aka Durkin style:

"We should all be concerned about the risks associated with... Jim Gordon’s pornographic proposal by design arouse(ing)... the world's largest industrial offshore experiment... where “there exists an intimate relationship between the inhabitants of the area... pseudo enviromentalists... Jim and Dan Boone... immoral and reckless... (and)the abundance of Cod fish."

"There are no victims, only volunteers... up to 6,600 per year... our cultural heritage, ongoing since before Gosnold’s travels when he named the place because of the abundance of Cod fish... as noted historical geographer Dr. Louis DeVorsey concluded that the residents took their livelihood from the sea...

We should all be concerned"

Walter:

One who is quite obviously challenged to engage in intelligent conversation is doing one heck of a job for those of us who oppose Cape Wind. I'd go so far as to say that it is plausible that the challenged one is a shill for the Alliance. How clever would that be, the Alliance mole, Stephen Turbine in Every Pot Windsmart? Peckham, masquerading as a Cape Wind proponent, our trojan horse?

satire, of course, while the effect is the same

Thank you, Capri, I also enjoy the information that you continually provide.

If CCToday wants to have Durkins posts act as a FREE poster board for cut and paste Durkin / EGAN / MIHOS / Dal'liance proppabble...

That is their choice... So called "intelligent converstation" ceases to exist when the site is used as noted above.

Durkins regular posted "comments" are no different than the (paid political?)ads placed in the local daily / weekly print rags... Except that those "posts' are paid for.

Conversation with Durkin of late is much like that with a brick.

Could have sworn she had an intellect... Must have been mistaken.

Capri:

I'm not so sure if I'm refering to an Alliance shill, or a monkey that Walter has taught how to scribble.

In any case, he is great for our cause as he's associated with Clean Power Now, Cape Wind and Cape Cod Today and he's scribbling away for their misquided cause.

If Peck gets all these names, I want "Ted From Hyannis" back.

Told you before Monpo... Was trying to hide out under an 'ASSumed'...

While pretending to clean the office and actually make a honest buck today...

Something all you trust fund broads wouldn't know anything about... Just commenting n' posting all day long.

Poor slob like me still trying to break even scratching a living most evry day.

Go ahead... Take "Ted" back; He's all yers. Fat ass n'all.

Gonna try new one fer size too...

I rather like the feel of this one.

Speaking of ASS Monpo... Is 'your' "Ted" from Hyannis or 'Hyport'?

No sense convoluting the blogstew.

I had a wealthy childhood and I'm OK now... but the middle period was straight poverty.

I used to get up, go to college for morning classes, sleep in my car for 2 hours, do afternoon classes, dash home to feed the kid sis and bro when THEY came home from school, then work the night shift at the factory. I may have been 19.

Maybe you were actually fortunate... Most childhoods: SUCK.

Seems you knew better and for whatever reason ("Long journeys seldom begin in Chinese restaruants") you prevailed...

An' you have dun good... Hard work/ethic paid off ~yes?

Bet you have no guilt feelings now when... 'Sleeping in'.

Yer ok kid Frenchi.

Hope same can be said of the cooking;~)