Kennedy faces fight on Cape Wind: Key lawmakers oppose his bid to block project
WASHINGTON — As record oil prices turn attention to the need for renewable fuels, momentum is building in Congress to buck Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s bid to block the proposed Cape Cod wind energy project, potentially reviving efforts to construct the sprawling windmill farm in Nantucket Sound.
One of the saddest and most distressing aspects of modern political gamesmanship is the intersection between public policy and self-interest. Here we are, in the midst of a gasoline crisis, when you’d think that the search for alternative energy sources would be of prime importance. And then there’s Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who opposes a windfarm in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, ostensibly because it’s a mere eight miles from his own. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that window power is the answer to all that ails us, but wind is an inexhaustible research, and a source of power that could potentially make a difference, if not today then certainly in years to come. For a US Senator to oppose the Cape Cod Wind Farm because it’s too close to home rises to a degree of hypocrisy I would normally only attribute to Republicans.
There are many things I admire about Sen. Kennedy, but in this case there is nothing admirable about his gross hypocrisy, and he’s seriously risking whatever political capital and credibility he has remaining.
The efforts to move the wind farm forward occur amid growing attention to Kennedy’s role in the secret, behind-the-scenes maneuvering to stop it. Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, the senator who inserted the wind-farm provision into the Coast Guard bill, has acknowledged discussing the matter privately with the Massachusetts Democrat.
Environmental groups have launched an aggressive advertising and lobbying campaign to persuade Democrats to abandon Kennedy and back a promising source of renewable energy. If the wind farm becomes a reality, advocates say, it could provide three-fourths of the Cape and Islands’ energy needs and could set an example for the nation.
The maneuver to stop the wind farm ”is clearly a backroom deal, and they’re going to get called publicly on it,” said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. ”The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy.”
The 130-turbine, 24-square-mile cluster of windmills would be about 8 miles from Kennedy’s home in Hyannis Port, and he has long opposed it. The Coast Guard bill would give Governor Mitt Romney, another wind farm opponent, the power to veto it, even if the project clears all other hurdles.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Ted Kennedy….
The Cape Cod wind farm will not solve our energy problems, but it’s a step in the right direction. For Sen. Kennedy to oppose it out of self-interest (and an alleged concern for the scenery and tourist potential of Cape Cod) is so wrong it almost defies description. While I’m angered by Kennedy’s perfidy and self-interest, Adam is truly outraged, as he outlined in this space earlier this month.
Kennedy argues that property values will decline and the local economy will be hurt because tourists don‚Äôt want to see turbines. This is disputed by a report that includes assessments from 17 different government agencies that concluded that property values are unlikely to drop and that the economy would probably be boosted from both increased tourism and the jobs created by the farm‚Äôs operation….
[T]his adds up to one unavoidable truth: many of our elected leaders have self- and corporate interests ranked ahead of the public interest in matters of serious consequence. If it were up to me, they would be publicly humiliated and forced to resign because of it, but sadly, I know that’s not going to happen. What I can hope for is that by exposing just a tiny clip of the ridiculous dealings that lead to the implementation of policy here, I can inspire a few people to learn a little more and become a little more involved in changing things.
This should be self-evident, but….
WE DESERVE BETTER….
I agree with you about the chicanery of this process. It matches the chicanery of the Cape Wind promoters themselves.
I must point out, however, that your invocation of a gas crisis is irrelevant. Oil is used for transportation and heating, but wind turbines produce (intermittently and variably) electricity. Very little oil is used to generate electricity in the U.S., and what is used is mostly the sludge left over from refinement.
Rosa, Jack wasn't saying that wind power could contribute to lowering gas prices, he was pointing out that because of the gas crisis, awareness of energy problems should be at the forefront, not just in the realm of alternative fuels.
Moreover, it is not as irrelevant as you would think. The electricity that powers oil and gas refineries, oil wells, etc, has to come from somewhere. If it comes from cheaper, cleaner wind energy, the overall carbon footprint of gas production will fall, and perhaps the price as well.
What exactly is your problem with Cape Wind?
He wrote, "Here we are, in the midst of a gasoline crisis, when you'd think that the search for alternative energy sources would be of prime importance." The implication is a search for an alternative to gasoline.
But after trying to broaden the issue, you try to reconnect gas and wind power. Are you seriously suggesting that the cost of gas is affected by the price of electricity, or that a significant part of the carbon "footprint" of gasoline is in the electricity used by refineries?
Finally, although I mentioned "chicanery" on the part of the promoters, I did not say I had a problem with the Cape Wind project itself, only with misleading reasons for supporting it (i.e., chicanery).
I disagree that the implication of his sentence is that the search must be for alternative fules, rather, the gas crisis is mentioned as a vehicle for understanding the importance of energy in our society and the need for alternatives. Nothing in the way he wrote it necessarily implies that wind has anything to do with gas.
With regard to the electricity argument, I am not saying that it is by any means a substantial part of the carbon output of gasoline use, but to say it is "irrelevant" is not correct. Surely if I were to argue that wind power is pollution-free, there would be arguments related to the carbon output in the electricity used to manufacture the turbines? Why should that same argument not apply to the gasoline industry?
He mentions gas as the crux of a discussion about wind power. It is not strange to come away with the impression that he meant they were connected.
As to the other issue, wind power is largely carbon-free during operation, so its carbon profile in manufacture, transport, and construction is relevant (if not significant). Oil is the major source of carbon emissions in the U.S., so the contribution of the electricity to its refinement is relatively insignificant (if not "irrelevant" as you misleadingly emphasized with quotation marks).
Adam,
It is enjoyable to see someone intelligent enough to keep up with you. :-)
Adam,
It is enjoyable to see someone intelligent enough to keep up with you. :-)
What is so odd about this legislation is that the state ALREADY has ample power to kill the Cape Wind project even without a gubanotorial veto. The turbines themselves are located on so-called "federal lands," but the state must issue a consistency permit under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Moreover, the transmission line connecting the project to shore is located entirely on state owned lands. If the state of Massachusetts does not want Cape Wind (which I believe is an unwise decision), then let the state use its existing power under state and federal law and processes to kill project. What the legislation will do is give a state governor the power under federal law to override the decisions of his own state's agencies to target a single project. That is not a road that we should choose to go down.