Cape Wind "Church Lady" on Diane Rhem's Show But Not Local Affiliates

An appearance on NPR's Diane Rhem's Show apparently isn't good enough for "Cape Wind" co-author, Wendy Williams, and self assigned book promoter, CapeCodToday.com, an on-line Cape Cod privately run website owned by former news reporter, Walter Brooks.

For the past week Brooks, a single-minded supporter and promoter of the Cape Wind project, has written numerous outraged articles, solicited angry letters from pro-Cape Wind supporters, invented what he calls "a windstorm of protest" and made phone calls to NPR's WGHB in Boston , the parent company of its local affiliate WCAI, in an attempt to embarrass and bully them into promoting the "Cape Wind" book on air.

As the Church Lady would say "How Conveenient".

Brooks claims "The alleged boycott of a book is a incredibly embarrassing accusation against an institution with a reputation for fighting for freedom of speech and open government."

Yet, his site, capecodtoday.com regularly censors its readers and bloggers, provides only one-sided news articles in favor of Cape Wind, deletes, admonishes, alters comments, suppresses open debate and either threatens to or out rightly bans people for exercising that same freedom of speech with regards to public comments on Cape Wind project.

Is it possible that the "Cape Wind" book just isn't that good?

Apparently, some people at WGHB and affiliate WCAI, think so. And so do readers on Cape Cod.

A check in with Border's Books on the Cape reveals no one is buying the book.

According to Broadcast Director, Steve Young, and others at the stations, they only just received a copy the book and hadn't made up their minds yet about it but he added "WCAI has already aired an hour-long interview with the book's authors on Monday, May 7 during the Diane Rehm Show". Additionally, WCAI has covered many stories on the issue, over the past six years, since the Cape Wind project was first was announced.

Since when does a radio station have the obligation to promote any book?

I listened to Diane Rhem's NPR interview with Wendy Williams. It's a gem.

Never have I read such shameless marketing and vicious finger-pointing at public opposition on behalf of a private developer than that of so-called science writer Wendy Williams and Co-author, editorialist, Robert Whitcomb in a book on any environmental subject.

And yet, Ms. Williams categorically denies she has decided whether she likes the project or is attempting to influence public opinion and decision-making, claiming she is simply reporting on the six year controversy.

Ms. Williams claims "It was not intentional that I followed the Cape Wind story."

Yet, somehow she managed to wind up with an assignment from an international wind industry news magazine, Windpower Monthly, to write about the project.

"How conveenient."

In order to gather information for her 'scientific' report Ms. Williams slipped herself into society cocktail parties, sat in the back of the room taking notes at oppositional meetings and eavesdropped on conversations at exclusive country club fund-raisers and public hearings, preferring to mingle with and sit next to the well funded opposition, whom she characterizes as the rich who only care about their view, rather than the local fishermen, lower and middle class residents and working people of the Cape who also vehemently oppose the project.

I guess that is because she decided the average Cape Codder is too ignorant to know anything about it. If they did, surely they would support what she describes in her 'unbiased' fashion an 'incredibly imaginative ambitious project".

"It seemed to me as of from the beginning" say Ms. Williams "some local people, but not all, some local people had made up their minds that they did not want the project."

"We attended meetings in which people had decided to oppose the project long before the developer had actually filed a proposal. The decision was made in the minds of some before they understood what the technology was, or before they knew very much about who the proponent was, or before they understood much about how the electric grid functions."

Ms. Williams obviously prefers Cape Wind spin to public opinion and their right to object to a project they see as damaging to their community and public resources while conveniently ignoring science, facts and available data.

In an outlandish response to, on-call guest, fisherman Captain Ed Barrett's statement:

"It’s an area that’s very important to fisheries. It’s an area that has natural habitat, it’s has natural structure. It’s an area where a lot of species come to spawn, to forage, to seek protection, and I think any time you start proposing putting 130-40 foot story structures up in an area, in a small area like that with a tight grid as they’re doing, then I think you have to look at the effects that it’s going to have on the marine resources."

Ms. Williams denied there is any fishing in the Nantucket Sound.

"Some people have said that there is a substantial amount of fishing in Nantucket Sound. On the other hand, many people have told me that there is not a substantial amount of fishing in Nantucket Sound. I’m a science journalist, and what I do when a scientist tells me something, and I say, “That’s interesting, can you hand me the documents, and I’ll call you after I read them.” For five years I have been told there is a lot of fishing in Nantucket Sound. I walk there a lot. I don’t see the boats. I’ve asked for the documents, and the documents have never been given to me."

To which Captain Barrett responds:

"I’m in utter disbelief actually that someone could actually say that. There are very specific statistics from the Division of Marine Fisheries that would point to the amount of fishing that does exist. The two important fisheries for mobile gear are squid and fluke. And for squid season, we generally harvest little under 2 million pounds of squid, for fluke season last year’s quota was 1.1 million. Those are species that are caught by day boats, that are caught from harbors such as Woods Hole, Haines, Nantucket, Chatham. There are a substantial amount of fishery -- fishing for sea bass, that’s another -- striped bass. These are all very important species for the State of Massachusetts and they’re (those species are) managed through the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Those statistics are readily available."

Ms. Williams defends:

"I’ve asked Ed for those documents for five years and he hasn’t given them to me."

Why ask a fisherman? Why not go to the source of the data, the State of MA Division of Marine Fisheries and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council? Could it possibly be because Ms. Williams would prefer not to directly receive the scientific data and documents in support of the amount of fishing in the Nantucket Sound?

"How Conveenient."

Originally, "Cape Wind wanted to put 170" (now 130 turbines over 40 stories tall industrial wind power plant with a 100 ft high electrical transformer platform spread out over twenty-five sq. miles) "wind turbines in the middle of Nantucket Sound." Ms. Williams said.

"The developer says it was chosen because he feels that is the best location for the project. The water on the Horseshoe Shoal, which is where these would be built, is quite shallow. It’s very shallow. And he would like to... at this point offshore wind has only been developed in somewhat shallow waters. The technology to develop these projects in deeper waters does not yet exist. It might exist in the future, but it’s not available now."

For a science writer, Wendy Williams seems not to be one to do the research. The technology for deep water wind power is well known and producing electricity off the coast of Scotland.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., also on call for the show, states:

"The Horseshoe Shoal" proposed area of the Nantucket Sound for the Cape Wind project "is 63 percent of the catch for the fishermen of Menemsha, Chatham, Haines, and a couple of other communities come from there. Well, many of these families believe they will be put out of business because of this project. And all we’ve said to Jim Gordon (developer of the project) is let’s move it farther offshore.”

“You know, that’s what they’re doing in Europe. They have deepwater projects now operating in Europe and they have many, many more planned."

"And let’s put this offshore where it’s not going to harm the fishermen who are so much a part of the culture and the economy of our region. There is many places like Chatham, like Menemsha, and like Haines where the entire character of the communities are built around the commercial fishery. These are fisheries that’s 350 years old. Let’s not steal their most valuable resource and turn it over to an industrialist so that he can make money and put these people out of business."

Obviously, Ms. Williams didn't go to Mr. Kennedy for the science and facts since the Kennedy Family is one of the many Cape Cod families she bashes in her book, characterizing them and the oppostion as wealthy, non reputable, biased, self serving industry moguls, while at the same time idealizing wealthy industrial developer, Jim Gordon of Cape Wind as a self-made man, an honest underdog, politically naïve, straight-forward and determined.

Of course Ms. Williams makes no mention of Gordon's recent proposal of a dirty fossil fuel burning industrial diesel power plant for the already heavily polluted community of Chelsea MA.

The fact is Wendy Williams would be hard-pressed to find anyone in this country that knows more, has sacrificed more, worked harder and more tirelessly for the environment than life-long naturalist and envrionmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is an avid outdoorsman, senior attorney for the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper and President of Waterkeeper Alliance.

His uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy has been promoting the Nantucket Sound as a national marine sanctuary for nearly thirty years, way before a project like Cape Wind was even a twinkling in a developer's eye and pocketbook. Now he is being called a selfish NIMBY for continuing to protect it.

And Senator Kennedy is advocating a comprehensive national policy on the siting of offshore wind farms since one has yet to be developed.

Instead, Ms. Williams relies on an industrial developer for her 'facts'.

The interview ended with Ms. Williams charge that the opposition to the Cape Wind project is "a very, very wealth group, basically a team to take over a public process".

How ironic that she ignores the fact that the developer of Cape Wind is attempting to take over a public waterway for his own personal gain and stands to make billions in public subsidy and tax incentives for something the affected public does not want nor have they asked for.

"Every time" Kennedy said "there is a national crisis or an international crisis, the first thing that the polluters and the industrialists say is, well, we have to sacrifice our most beautiful areas, whether it’s the ANWR or whether it’s building nuclear power plants or whatever."

"And here is another example. This is a public trust water. It’s one of the most heavily utilized public trust resources in North America. There is up to four million people a year who use this resource."

"What I’ve been fighting for 24 years is private developers who want to come and develop and steal public trust resources and privatize them. "And in this case" he added "there is very, very little democratic protection or process."

Not only has the public objected to it, but the towns, all three airports and passenger ferries (for reasons of public safety), toursim boards, commercial fishing organizations and conservation and wildlife protection groups have as well. Not one elected senator or congressman representing the Cape in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has endorsed the Cape Wind project.

Ms. Williams decries interference in the public process yet she and co-author Robert Whitcomb are doing just that with their book which failed to hear to all sides with open minds, diligently and without bias research the facts, take them into account, present them in an honest and unbiased fashion. Instead they attempt to silence valid public concerns with distortion of the facts, condemnation, avoidance, ridicule, name-calling and spin.

And they smear an entire community of good hard working citizens, they haven't even bothered to know, who have a strong sense of place, seated in democracy, to do it.

"Well, isn't that special?"

Because You are "Green" Doesn't Mean You Have to Love Wind Power

Industrial wind farms, like the Cape Wind project, are on the rise and along with them public protest and opposition. Is it anti-environnmental to even question much less object? Not at all. In fact, questioning wind power does not mean anti-environment and in reality the opposite is most often the case. Those that question are those that care or they wouldn't be involved in the debate at all.

In fact, being "Green" means you should question not only the viability of wind power but its potential negative impacts on the Earth, its communities and the living beings and ecosystems on which it depends.

Making responsible choices is the key to living Green.

But in today's political environment that often means questioning and questioning is often met with ridicule and attack. However, fighting the good fight has always been met with attack.

Take the war in Iraq, for example. To even question it, much less oppose it, holds you up to attack. Any opposition or skepticism is met with the label, Un-American. But how can that be? This country was founded on freedom and the ability of people to openly question the government.

Alternative energy seems to have come down to one choice, wind power. And to question it is called anti-environment or pro-pollution, as in fossil fuels. But, what sense does that make?

Questioning wind power does not mean anti-environment and in fact the opposite is most often the case. Those that question are those that care or they wouldn't be in the debate at all.

Because we are offered one choice by one industry does not mean we need to buy it as the only choice. There are many other alternatives in the works that could prove much less harmful to the living environment. Conservation is a start that will buy us the needed time to come up with real viable alternatives already in the works like the Hydrogen Economy, for instance, based on bio-mass.

Of course, conservation doesn't make anyone rich so it is mostly disregarded as too simple. Often, the real common sense solutions, that people can actually do themselves, are. Except, of course, in the past when American's were asked to conserve and make due during times of war and economic crisis. (Sound familiar?) And they obliged. Why aren't we being asked, even made, to conserve? Why are we only being asked to support more and more industry, to buy more and more gas guzzling vehicles and to go further and further into debt?

But, industry, least we forget, is about profit not altruism and human values. While industry has done a good job of masking its motives through marketing, let's not forget just who these companies are.

An example is GE who has managed to change its public image from a polluting industry to a green one simply through marketing itself as Green. While it manufactures wind turbines and markets itself in its eco-imagination campaign as a forward thinking green hero, it also is responsible for polluting our skies and waterways.

This company dumped pollutants like PCBs into the Hudson River for years and when it was caught launched an enormous well funded public relations campaign using beautiful images of the river, birds and estuaries, that hood-winked a majority of public into thinking GE was responsible for the very health and life of the Hudson River, not its slow death. In fact, people like Pete Seeger, though his activism for the Hudson River among other environmental warriors like the Hudson Riverkeeper were the ones that protected it, cleaned it up and called GE to task.

Behind every industrial wind farm is a developer looking to profit, Big.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. Except, of course, when you take a good look at the sales end of things. Most wind farm sales are based on marketing a product to cure all ills and as we all know marketing is often less than honest.

Years ago, we had the snake oil salesmen who would blow into town, offering their product guaranteed to cure all ills. By the time people realized they had been duped, the snake-oil salesman was long gone and off to his next mark.

What does snake-oil have to do with industrial wind farms?

Everything. Just as snake oil salesmen promised to cure society's ills with a tonic, the wind power industry does the same with a wind farm. It promises, not only, to produce clean renewable energy at a lower cost, it also promises to lessen our dependence on foreign oil which will save our soldiers lives, our own, stop pollution, save the environment and cure Global Warming!

Buyer Beware. When something sounds too good to be true, it most often is.

In Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb's book, "Cape Wind", the authors attack the local citizen's opposition mercilessly as rich NIMBY's who only care about their view. Never mind that the Cape is one of the poorest county's in MA with people from all walks of life struggling to make ends meet in a community dependant on fishing and Summer tourism to survive and, of course, the service industries needed to back them up.

But beyond that, and probably most galling to the authors and Cape Wind project, not one senator or congressman nor one town, on the Cape, has endorsed the project. This of course is written off with the implication that they have all been bought by the wealthy. However, the writers will not come right out and say it. Why? Because these public officials represent the views of those that elected them, the towns themselves and the People of Cape Cod and the Islands.

Are there wealthy people on the Cape? Yes. And perhaps even more galling than the politicians not in favor of Cape Wind, those people have been willing to fund a not for profit organization, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, that opposes the project.

Ask yourself, when was the last time any local community won in opposition to a developer without the funding to do it? Can't think of one? That is not surprising. Developers count on their ability to out-spend any opposition. But this time they ran into a group of committed people who have put millions of dollars into trying to stop them. Fair is fair.

In contrast we have another project proposed by the developers of Cape Wind, the Chelsea Diesel Power Plant (a fossil fuel burning polluting power plant proposed by that same clean green power group, how ironic but how telling) where the local opposition is simply being railroaded by the developer because they have no real funding to stop it.

When did NIMBY become a bad word?

How can anyone oppose anything without being labeled NIMBY, as a bad thing? Funny how spin works, it takes a virtue, protecting your own and turns it into a vice, selfishness. And it attempts to boil down valid opposition into sound bites of the ridiculous.

An editorial under Cheers & Jeers, in the Cape Cod Times, May 18, 2007, talks about the complexity of the issues:

Intellectual laziness

"When we hear Sen. Edward Kennedy's well-reasoned arguments against the Cape Wind farm reduced to the aesthetics issue, we ask ourselves: What is it about society today that more and more people are reducing complex issues to the simplest possible terms?

Other promoters of the wind farm are minimalizing this complex public policy debate, with a million different arguments both pro and con, to a simple case of NIMBYism.

Kennedy, who has promoted Nantucket Sound as a national marine sanctuary since at least 1980, is advocating for a comprehensive national policy on the siting of offshore wind farms.

Do people no longer have the time to understand the complicated details, nuances, gray areas that play a part in nearly every important topic of our day?"

But back to the democratic process and the idea that we should not question, much less object and oppose, if we dare, an industrial wind power plant in our back or should I say, front yard.

Hijacking the democratic process to sell a product.

Wendy Williams writes: "We need a serious and responsible conversation about the future of energy in America. As we have it, we cannot allow the public discussion to be hijacked by those with hidden agendas. There's simply too much at stake."

I couldn't agree with her more but, ironically, her book attempts to hijack public discussion with her hidden agenda, to promote Cape Wind.

If the authors of "Cape Wind" truly want a serious and responsible conversation about the future of energy in America they will have to listen to all sides, take them into account, present them in an honest and unbiased fashion and stop attempting to silence valid public concerns with ridicule and spin.

That is democratic.

Top Ten Uses for Cape Wind Book

10. Use it to wrap dead fish that will float in from Horseshoe Shoal

9. Saute it in leaking transformer oil - with a little salt water

8. Make it into a life raft for sea ducks, plovers, and terns that will be zapped by the rotors

7. Grind it into food for out of work fishermen

6. Sell it aboard the high speed ferries as Nantucket Sound flotation devises

5. Convert it into barf bags for passengers aboard airplanes that will have to soar and dip around the turbines

4. Use it as a deflector for confused radar at PAVE PAWS

3. Transform it into novelty sun visors for tourists who will flee the Cape and Islands for New Jersey

2. Issue it in paperback with a revised title, "Breaking Wind"

1. Burn it for fuel in Jim Gordon's Chelsea diesel power plant

Birds, Bats and Wind Industry Boondoggle

This past week and continuing across the Internet and mainstream media, the hazards to birds and bats at industrial wind farms are finally being recognized, questioned, studied and exposed.

This exposure, of course, has the wind industry in an uproar. Until now, they have done quite a successful job of spinning the harm to birds and bats by calling it a myth and pointing to irrelevant statistics on deaths to birds by house cats.

But now the science is coming into play and try as the wind industry might, this is an issue that has managed to extract itself from the spin it was in.

The National Academy of Science not only questioned wind industry claims of no significant hazard to birds and bats but they questioned claims of improvement to air quality and called for scientific study of both issues.

According to a New York Times article titled Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests the National Academy of Science found that "officials who will decide whether to build the turbines have few tools to measure the devices' impact on air quality, on animals like birds and bats, and on wilderness preservation."

"Even the scale of local damage from wind farms is unclear. Bats and raptors are thought to be the animals most threatened by wind turbines because they reproduce more slowly. But scientists base estimates on fairly primitive methods, like counting animal carcasses nearby and hoping that few have been carried off by animals, said Paul G. Risser, chairman of the academy's study. "If 100 bats are killed, we don't know whether that's 100 out of 10 million or 100 out of 100 million," Dr. Risser said."

The National Research Council reported "policymakers need to better consider the overall impacts, such as the threat spinning blades pose to birds and bats" "The towers appear most dangerous to night-migrating songbirds, bats and some hunting birds, but not enough about the risks is known to draw conclusions".

On May 1, 2007 Congress heard its first testimonies on the killing of birds and bats by wind turbines.

Deb Price of The Detroit News reports in her article Congress mulls bird kills by wind turbines:
"U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W. Va., warned that wind turbines in the Appalachian mountains of his home state have killed so many bats that they could become an endangered species."
"Environmentalists, including those at the hearing, generally support wind-produced energy. But they want the federal government to require the wind industry to take precautions to minimize bird kills by, for example, locating the turbines away from migratory paths.
"Wind-energy developers are not going to voluntarily take all the steps that are reasonably necessary for the protection of wildlife," Mollohan said, adding that West Virginia developers ignored calls for multi-year studies on the impact of turbines on bats before constructing new ones.

"These developers are for-profit corporations that, like any other, are answerable to their shareholders," added Mollohan, who said developers have been given "a de facto exemption from the wildlife protection laws."

The State of Maryland is a prime example of exempting the wind industry from wildlife protection laws.

A month ago, lawmakers from the State of Maryland agreed to a measure that will make it easier to build large wind power projects in Maryland by eliminating environmental reviews on the potential impacts to birds, bats, endangered species and habitat fragmentation which was a part of the Public Service Commissions approval process.

According to the Maryland Alliance for Greenway Improvement and Conservation, these measures will "reduce environmental rights and reverse the concept of public involvement in the power-plant planning process".

But, in a land mark decision making them National leaders on the issue, an order instituting investigation into the impact on birds and bats from wind farms has been issued from the State of California to establish guidelines and public input for wind farms.

"These voluntary guidelines provide information to help reduce impacts to birds andbats from new development or repowering of wind energy projects in California.They include recommendations on preliminary screening of proposed wind energyproject sites; assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to birds and bats inaccordance with state and federal laws; developing avoidance and minimizationmeasures; establishing appropriate compensatory mitigation; facilitating completionof the permitting process; and operations monitoring, analysis and reportingmethods."

According to Donald Michael Fry, PhD, the Director of the Pesticides and Birds Program at the American Bird Conservancy, testimony to the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Oversight Hearing on: "Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats":

"The mortality at wind farms is significant, because many of the species most impacted are already in decline, and all sources of mortality contribute to the continuing decline."

"The wind energy industry has been constructing and operating wind projects for almost 25 years with little state and federal oversight. They have rejected as either too costly or unproven techniques recommended by NWCC to reduce bird deaths. The wind industry ignores the expertise of state energy staff and the knowledgeable advice of Fish and Wildlife Service employees on ways to reduce or avoid bird and wildlife impacts."

The National Audubon Society has endorsed wind power but qualifies it with the importance of "Location, location, location".

However, choosing a location for industrial wind power plants might just prove to be challenging since both wind farms, birds and bats have shown to be attracted to those same locations which include endangered species habitat, vital migratory flyways, coastlines, mountain ridges and prairies.

Photo of "Annie" a Bald Eagle by Author, Dona Tracy

Left-Wing Environmentalist Wackos Frame The Debate

Here is what the People are up against. A complete public, political, corporate, media and left-wing environmentalist strategy designed to influence common sense decisions by employing 'end of the world' fear into a brain-washing campaign over human caused Global Warming. How sinister and insulting can they possible be?

Here is an example:

Polarize debate in Congress and the presidential election

"Advancing a "climate civil defense" measure will allow Hansen's standard to be showcased without requiring that Congress endorse the view, perhaps reducing the strength of opposition and, more importantly, permitting a distinction to be drawn between small-scale domestic action Congress is prepared to take and the "bright lines" scale of risk. Legislation might also be considered to create a "climate czar" post, with inter-agency authority to coordinate the agenda and allocate resources between the multiplicity of federal departments and programs that handle climate and energy policy."

"Three efforts in recent U.S. political history to introduce an issue into the presidential race are useful guides in planning how a relatively inexpensive but deft and morally charged effort might achieve outsized results by heavy investment in early primary states (a fourth possibility is a third party candidate running on a single, climate change-plank platform should not be ruled out). Combining youth engagement in the 1968 McCarthy campaign, tactical innovations in the 2000 Campaign for Safe Energy, and approaches of anti-abortion activists, particularly in 1980 and 1984, a roadmap for interjecting an moral, absolutist view into presidential elections can be developed."

For Balance, links and needed skepticism on the Truth Regarding CO2 and Climate Change Click HERE

To read the complete article on strategies to influence the American People and voting public to goose-step into the left-wing environmentalists party line Click HERE

Cape Wind may have Blown Itself Out of the Water

Developer Jim Gordon, of the Cape Wind project, may have been thinking "It is sometimes better to apologize than ask for permission" when his company omitted the dredging of Horseshoe Shoal from their Final Environmental Impact Report to the State of Massachusetts. But when it comes to a project of this magnitude, 130 440' wind turbines and a 100' electrical platform slated for 25 square miles of the Nantucket Sound, a public waterway, off the coast of Cape Cod and the Islands an apology just won't cut it.

Mark Weissman, board member of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Commission and consultant to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (comment on FEIR HERE) testified at the Cape Cod Commission's public hearing, March 19, 2007, on the adequacy of Cape Wind's Final Environmental Impact Report that the FEIR omitted critical information on the dredging required in order for construction barges to get in and around 12 turbines that would be located in less than 12 feet of water, some would be in water only 7-8 feet deep. Since the draw of construction barges and tug boats (a fleet of these vessels ranging from 90-400' long would be required during construction and pile driving activities) is from 10-14 feet of water it would be impossible for those boats to navigate without dredging massive "harbor-sized "deep-water ports" at each of the many shallow-water turbine sites and dredge miles of deep wide channels for transiting the shoal to the sites".

This undisclosed dredging and possible blasting would have grave consequences on the marine life and habitat of Nantucket Shoal. Weissman concluded that "A supplemental must be required (by the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act) to address the impacts to habitat and marine resources of these extraordinary alterations of large portions of the Shoal that would be required to erect many of the turbines."

In a Letter to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times on March 22, 2007, Mark Rodgers, spokesperson for Cape Wind wrote:

"Mr. Weissman stated that Cape Wind's final environmental impact report neglected to mention dredging Horseshoe Shoal, which Mr. Weissman incorrectly claimed would be needed to create access for a construction barge used in installing the wind turbines. Mr. Weissman went on to speculate about damage such dredging would cause. The reason Cape Wind's final environmental impact report makes no mention of dredging Horseshoe Shoal is that no dredging is needed for a construction barge to access the wind turbine locations"

On April 10, 2007, Jack Coleman, a former paid media consultant to the pro-wind farm non-profit Clean Power Now who has written about the project as a proponent for two years, wrote an analysis of Mr. Weissman and Mr. Rodgers statements titled Valid criticism - from the opposition on Cape Cod Today, an on-line newspaper, showing charts of the area and pointing out that dredging would most likely have to occur.

"Cape Wind wants to build its turbines in one of the most ecologically dynamic settings on the East Coast, a shoal that's continually buffeted by currents, wind and waves. " Jack Coleman

The following excerpts are from Coleman's blog post Valid criticism - from the opposition:

"Two Cape Wind supporters I spoke with about this were both dismissive. I am of a different opinion -- whether dredging of Horseshoe Shoal is needed is hugely significant, and I suspect it's the main reason MMS extended its regulatory review. It's not just areas directly adjacent to the turbines that may need to be dredged -- the same may be true of water less than 12 feet deep for hundreds of feet in all directions around these specific turbines, to allow tugboats and huge construction barges room to maneuver."

"But after spending roughly $30 million before generating a single kilowatt-hour, why would Cape Wind risk jeopardizing the project with a questionable omission in its documentation to MMS? I can only conclude the omission is not accidental. If the amount of dredging needed is even half as much as critics like Weissman allege, it would still involve an immense amount of material removed from the seabed. Material that have to be dredged from Horseshoe Shoal -- and placed elsewhere. The eyes glaze at the thought of the additional red tape involved. By not addressing this in the FEIR, Cape Wind may have crossed its fingers and hoped for the best. Who knows, maybe it'll pass muster. Then again, maybe not."

"Cape Wind has dodged more than its share of bullets -- lawsuits, well-funded lobbying in Washington, overheated rhetoric about avian carnage and navigational mayhem. But when it comes to dredging, that string of good fortune may come to an end. This issue, and proponents' dismissal of its importance, is an Achilles heel that Cape Wind ignores at its peril."

Suddenly, the Editors of capecodtoday.com, also wind farm supporters, closed the comments on Coleman's post stating that :

"Cape Cod TODAY regrets to inform our readers that Jack Coleman failed to contact the developer for their response before publishing this post. Cape Wind categorically denies that any dredging will take place in constructing the wind farm. They state that having reduced the proposed footprint from 170 to 130 turbines two years ago they have amble space to rearrange the placement should any specific sites prove difficult and that there is 12 feet of high water around each proposed turbine site. More importantly, any dredging would require many additional permits which would be nearly impossible to acquire according to the developer (*emphasis added). "

Within several minutes, the comments were opened back up along with "a wager to any and all Cape Wind supporters. Seeing how it is apparently beyond the realm of possibility that dredging will be needed for this project, how about a wager of one dollar with odds of, say, 1,000 to 1? If I lose, I will gladly pay $1 to any and all people willing to accept this wager. And if they lose, they each pay me $1,000." From Jack Coleman.

150 comments later, there are still no takers.

See Jack Coleman's analysis HERE

Corruption in the Wind

Last week, in an outrageous decision to speed up the process for industrial wind farms, the lawmakers in Maryland voted to eliminate environmental reviews concerning the potential impact on wildlife, endangered species and forest fragmentation.

This historic back-slide will have a severe impact on environmental rights and the public's involvement in power-plant approval. See article in The Tribune-Democrat

And following on the heels of a win for the Cape Wind project, the Minerals Management Service has delayed its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Why? Could it be because Governor Deval Patrick of MA had his newly appointed Secretary of Environmental Affairs rubber stamp an incomplete FEIR for Cape Wind?

Today, an article written by Cape Wind proponent, journalist, Jack Coleman outlines one stunning piece of omitted information from Cape Wind's FEIR concerning the dredging of Horseshoe Shoal, which would displace miles of seabed in "one of the most ecologically dynamic settings on the East Coast", concluding it was not accidental.

Read full story HERE

Industrial Wind Farms: Where are the savings?

The 'Great Wind Rush' is on!

Despite strenuous objections from citizens all over the world, who see the destruction and potential destruction of their landscapes, seascapes and wildlife from industrial wind power plants and no savings in CO2 emissions or dependency on foreign oil, nearly all of the applications from developers have been approved.

Why?

We are told, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, it has to do with Global Warming and that in order to reduce the 'Greenhouse Effect' we must sacrifice our scenic views, precious natural resources and wildlife today in order to have them tomorrow.

But, what are the facts?

To date, not one fossil fuel plant has been closed, or even throttled back--despite thousands upon thousands of wind turbines now operating all over the world.

And in spite of the absurdly inefficient nature of industrial wind farms in countries such as Denmark and Germany (whose primary electrical utility (EON) openly admits that wind is very inefficient and doesn't actually provide any net contribution), the two most 'wind-electricity' intensive nations on Earth, wind power has not resulted in any reduction in fossil-fuel plant use--none. And in fact CO2 emissions are on the rise in those countries.

Who is driving this industrial scam?

The developers and the politicians. There's money in them there wind mills: Enormous subsidies and tax breaks for the developers and feel good non solutions for the politicians.

How do we get to the bottom of this as citizens who ultimately pay the price with our hard earned dollars in taxes and rising electrical rates (the citizens of Denmark pay the highest electrical rates in the world and get nothing for it) and the sacrifice of our beautiful lands, seas and wildlife?

We must hold our politicians and industrial developers accountable.

We need to demand that for each project; riders that stipulate if the wind farms do not live up to its claims, the utility/developer must pay some sort of pro rata penalty--not to the state, but to communities within X miles radius; or better yet, they must reduce their charge per kilowatt hour, pro rated for the amount of electricity produced versus the amount it was claimed would be produced, on a monthly or annual basis; that way, everyone benefits.

And we need to demand that our politicians provide scientific proof NOT industry claims, than any wind farm approved will cut our CO2 emissions, dependence on foreign oil, lower our electrical rates, not violate environmental and safety laws, will benefit not harm the local economy and will not create more back power plants such as diesel fuel based peakers.

Finally we must demand exactly which fossil fuel burning power plant will be shut down when any industrial wind farm is built and operational.

For a summary of real-life wind performance through 12/05 click HERE The figures are sobering. Please send it along to your state-level reps....

Co-authored by Eric Jacobson, UK and Dona Tracy, USA

Cape Wind: Fact, Fantasy or Fraud?

Yes, Cape Wind has done it again. This private developer really knows how to sell a project.

Cape Wind walked its Final Environmental Impact Report, a mountainous slick four color promotional document filled with double-speak and corporate smoke and mirrors, straight past the People and plopped it, along with a big wad of promised cash, right onto the desk of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act.

APPROVED!

Did the Massachusetts Policy Act (MEPA) ever bother to read and investigate past the illustrations and one-liner hype? My guess is no. How could they? No one could read, research and comment on a 5,000 plus page document in thirty days, much less investigate all of the public comments and concerns in seven. It would take a University an entire semester to do that. But, no matter, MEPA had made up its mind way before that report hit the desk based on politics, making the gesture simply a formality.

And this isn't the first time Energy Management Inc/Cape Wind has bypassed the people. They also took their four-color slick money promising proposal for a dirty fossil fuel burning power plant past the people of Chelsea, MA, already suffering the highest hospitalized asthma and cardio-vascular disease rates in the State of MA, to the MEPA office. Approved!

Its a gold rush!

And without State and Federal regulations in place its a total 'free for all' out there with private energy developers, like Cape Wind, literally falling all over each other to claim millions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and public lands, before that door slams shut and the inconvenient facts are in.

What are those inconvenient facts?

Fact #1. Industrial Wind Farms will not reduce CO2 in our atmosphere, have any effect on the reduction of Global Warming nor will they reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Since wind blows intermittently, wind farms rely on fossil fuel plants as back up. Case in point, that diesel power plant proposed for the city of Chelsea, MA. Cape Wind knows the wind doesn't always blow so they are attempting to put their fossil fuel back up power plant in place which will spew sulfur, nitrogen oxide, and 37 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and straight into the lungs of the citizens and their children in Chelsea. For every 'clean green' wind farm there is a dirty fossil fuel or nuclear power plant backing it up.

Fact #2. Industrial Wind Farms like Cape Wind, in spite of their protest of agonizing years of Agency scrutiny and review, can not comply with State and Federal regulations. Why? The answer is simple. There aren't any. Regulations are only now being developed for off-shore wind farms and the Draft Environmental Impact Statements have not, as yet, been released.

Fact #3. Industrial Wind Farms will cause millions of bird, endangered species and bat deaths every year and this number will grow exponentially as wind farms do. Once again, the wind industry is smart. They have rushed for approval before the facts are in on the threats to wildlife based on studies and research paid for by their own industry. Of course, their findings show industrial wind farms in a favorable light. They are akin to the health studies done by the tobacco industry. But the truth follows in their wake. All over the world wind farms are killing eagles, migratory and nesting birds, endangered species and bats, just as smoking is causing cancers, emphysema and heart disease.

Fact #4. Industrial Wind Farms will have a catastrophic detrimental effect on our environment, precious open space, wildlife habitats and protected lands and seas. Industrial Wind Farms require miles of land and sea in order to be built. The developers must fell trees (which naturally suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, replacing it with life-giving oxygen), blast mountain tops, build roads, dig miles of electrical cables and destroy wildlife habitat in the process. Off shore wind projects like Cape Wind must not only clear land for its cables but they must dredge miles and miles of seabed to connect the underwater cables to their electrical platform killing and displacing all of the life that depend on it for its survival. This project, like all industrial wind farms has a huge foot print. Cape Wind will occupy 25 square miles of the Nantucket Sound. Do you know how big that is? It is the size of the Island of Manhattan, and its 130 440' tall wind turbines as large as 130 44 story tall skyscrapers, with spinning blades.

Fact #5. Industrial Wind Farms are not removed and the land and waters restored after the life of their projects or should they be abandoned by the operators. The average life of a wind farm is twenty years. To date, extensive research suggests no industrial wind farms have been removed as a result of decommissioning, they are left to simply rust and fall apart.

Fact #6. Industrial Wind Farms cause navigational and air traffic safety hazards and radar interference. Studies from the Department of Defense in the UK have shown radar interference at wind farms prompting our Department of Defense and FAA to issue its own studies.

Fact #7. Industrial Wind Farms have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, welfare, lives and livelihoods of those directly affected by them. Medical research has shown that people living near wind farms suffer debilitating illnesses directly correlated to the noise and constant flicker from wind turbine blades. Small already struggling commercial fishermen on Cape Cod are projected to lose 60% of their annual income should the Cape Wind project be built on the Horseshoe Shoals area of the Nantucket Sound.

Fact #8. Industrial Wind Farms present significant hazards to public safety. The US Coast Guard is concerned that it will be unable to perform search and rescue missions in the Nantucket Sound should Cape Wind be built. The rough waters and unpredictable weather have already cost many many people their lives. Not only is the Coast Guard concerned that it will have a diminished capacity to hoist victims into hovering helicopters but the helicopter and their pilots will now be threatened, as well, due to 130 440' tall structures with moving blades. All three airports on Cape Cod and the Islands, along with the ferries, that carry millions of passengers a year, have issued statements that Cape Wind will cause significant hazard to air and navigational safety.

Fact #9. Industrial Wind Farms when placed off shore pose oil spill threats. In order for an industrial off-shore wind farm to operate it must have an electrical service platform. These service platforms are filled with oil. Should a collision occur with an oil tanker, a fire break out in the transformer or accident due to natural forces like a hurricanes, this oil can spill into the water killing sea birds, fish and marine mammals while it spreads to the beaches, estuaries and coastal habitat.

Fact #10. Industrial Wind Farms are not our only choice for alternative energy. The Hydrogen Economy based on solar and biomass technologies is already in practice in many countries in the world and it is growing. It, unlike wind, is not intermittent and unlike wind (which must be used on the spot or it is wasted) can be stored in batteries for later use for our homes, buildings, cars and factories. It is safe, readily available, green and clean.

These are just some of the facts that the office of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act has chosen to ignore in its gold rush for money and political correctness.

Shame on them! They are being bought off with 10 million dollars (offered by Cape Wind to the State) in trade for the safety, say, beauty, natural resources and welfare of the People of the Massachusetts.

The Nantucket Sound might not be in your back or front yard but beware, the next Industrial Wind Farm may be on its way to a sanctuary or National Treasure near you. Will you be ready to decide what is fantasy, fact or fraud? And when you do, will your elected officials back you up or will they sell you, your community and precious natural resources out to a private developer?

For more information please see: National Wind Watch, Industrial Wind Action Group, Bat Conservation International, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, WindStop, Chelsea Collaborative, Save The Eagles, StopIllWind, Minnesotans for Sustainability, and Country Guardian

Divide and Conquer in the Environmental Movement

One of the biggest environmental travesties concerns the divide and conquer approach of Corporate America, politicians and industrial developers. Environmentalists have been pitted against environmentalists over the issue of human caused Global Warming and the solution, which appears to be one, industrial wind farms, even though there are many others in the works including the Hydrogen Economy, based on alternative energy that use solar and biomass technologies.

This divide and conquer tactic is a good one, in terms of its effectiveness. But not a good one in terms of a group of people who all have the same goal, saving the planet from pollution, environmental degradation and rampant industrial development.

The term NIMBY is thrown around so much it is hard to keep up with it. Just who is a NIMBY? There was a time when protecting your own was considered the highest of human values. After all, if we don't protect our own, who will?

But now, anyone who stands in the way of protecting their own is labeled a NIMBY. And a rich one at that.

Most of the environmentalists I know are not rich, nor are they NIMBYs. In fact, I would venture a guess that most environmentalists are of the middle class, not the rich.

We, as environmentalists, try to walk lightly on the earth, we reduce, reuse and recycle, we drive compact cars and look to replace them with electric cars in the future, we keep our thermostats down, we rarely use air conditioners, have converted to fluorescent light bulbs, use organic methods in our gardens, we buy organic foods and produce in our markets, we unplug electrical appliances that are not being used, we walk and ride bicycles rather than drive to town, we car pool, we repair rather than throw away, we protest shopping malls that attempt to build themselves in our fields and wetlands, we think globally and act locally, we give money to environmental causes we believe in, we protest factory farming, we protect wild places and wildlife, we turn out in droves to stop clear cutting and logging of our old growth forests, we volunteer our time, energy and support to give voice to the voiceless and the list goes on.

But then, controversy over human caused Global Warming and industrial wind plants enter the picture and all goes out the window. Suddenly name calling sets in, fights break out, censorship is attempted and we lose all connection to one another and fail to see our humanity and common ground.

When will we, environmentalists, simply agree to disagree and not allow ourselves to be divided by politics and industry? Because if and when that happens our power will be a force to be reckoned with. And that is exactly what politicians and industrial developers fear the most.

Eagles: Gone With The Wind?

Across the globe a new threat to eagles is quickly replacing shooting, poisoning, trapping and electrocution by power lines. The traditional Big Four has a new 'kid on the block'; Industrial Wind Farms.

Thousands of eagles are being killed by turbine blades every year all over the world and that number continues and will continue to grow as wind farms do.

The Alatmont Pass wind farm, in California, is probably the most infamous one. There, it is estimated that, over 2,300 Golden Eagles have lost their lives in the past twenty years to wind turbines. But, contrary to what the wind industry would like us to believe this is not an exception to the rule.

The Smola Wind Farm, off the coast of Norway, is responsible for killing off their entire breeding population of the endangered White-tailed (Sea) Eagle and all of their babies in less than ten months. This wind farm is brand new, considered state of the art and fitted with those modern slow moving turbine blades the industry likes to boast about, but these 'slow moving blades' are simply an optical illusion since they travel at over 200 mph at their tips.

Golden Eagles, White-tailed Eagles, Wedge-tailed Eagles, Short-toed Eagles, Booted Eagles and Bonelli's Eagles along with Griffon Vultures and scores of other raptor species are being decimated by wind farms with gruesome reports and pictures streaming in from the United States, Scotland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Spain and the United Kingdom.

But it's not just the Eagles that are dying at wind farms.

Bat and songbird mortality goes into the millions each year with the numbers rapidly growing as researchers begin to count them.

A study in New York has just filed its draft report on bird and bat deaths at a new 120 turbine wind farm. Although pre-construction studies predicted little to no impact to birds and bats this study now shows predictions of up to 6,000 bird and bat deaths a year based on body counts.

And no one knows how to stop it.

There is no more universal symbol of strength, beauty, freedom and independence than an Eagle. And there is probably no one on this planet that doesn't recognize an eagle and isn't moved by seeing one.

They speak to us. They speak to a part of ourselves that is collective in the human heart and the human soul and the human spirit.

Eagle emblems are carried into battle, adorn our halls of justice and the national flags of dozens of countries. Yet, in the name of the 'poster child' for alternative energy, fear of Global Warming and dependence on foreign oil we are wiping them out.

What will happen to our human hearts, souls and spirits when the Eagles are gone and we are left with, only, their symbols, signifying nothing.

There are alternatives to industrial wind farms that will help our planet and not kill our eagles in the process. Look into, support and push our elected officials to develop and bring on line the Hydrogen Economy based on alternative energies like Solar and Biomass.

Trees Not Turbines

At best, projects like Cape Wind might save us 10 cents on our electric bill. For that same 10 cents, I would rather plant a tree.

Trees not only remove CO2 and pollutants like dust, ash, pollen, smoke and dangerous gases from our atmosphere but they give back life giving oxygen, prevent soil erosion, beautify our communities and homes, raise our property values, save dollars on our heating and cooling bills and add precious wildlife habitat, some things Cape Wind will never do.

Fear of Global Warming, dependence on foreign oil and rising electric rates have made us feel helpless and prompted complicated, controversial, community dividing and expensive experimental solutions like the Cape Wind project.

Rather than empowering the citizens with what we can do to help, we asked to put our fate and faith in the hands of more industrial development rather than in ourselves and our ability to solve our problems.

Margaret Mead said "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."

Trees should not be overlooked. They are nature's way of clearing our planet of pollution. And in turn they provide the oxygen we breathe.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture "One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people"

Cape Wind has claimed it will reduce CO2 emissions by 800,000 tons per year. A claim, not backed up by facts however. But, be that as it may, if every citizen in the Commonwealth of MA were to plant one tree, we would not only Reduce but we would Remove more than 800,000 tons of CO2 per year from our atmosphere along with pollutants like dust, ash, pollen, smoke and dangerous gases and do something Cape Wind can never do, add oxygen back into the atmosphere.

One mature tree planted by a house can reduce air conditioning needs and can save energy used for heating, it can absorbs 10 lbs of air pollutants, including 4 lbs of ozone and 3 lbs of particulates, it can intercepts 760 gal of rainfall in its crown, thereby reducing runoff of polluted stormwater and flooding and it can clean 330 lbs of CO2 from the atmosphere through direct absorption in the tree's wood and reduced power plant emissions due to cooling energy savings. This one tree can reduce the same amount of atmospheric CO2 as released by a typical car driven 500 miles.

Those of us who oppose Cape Wind in favor of trees are often called NIMBY's but ironically, the name-callers are often NIMBY's themselves. Two years or so ago in Boston the NIMBY's, living along the Charles River, opposed the planting of trees saying they would ruin their view.

But, in a community like Chelsea, MA where Energy Management Inc, the parent company of Cape Wind, the view is secondary to the health of its citizens. EMI has proposed a fossil fuel burning power plant that will spew more sulfur, nitrogen oxide and 37 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and straight into the lungs of the citizens and school children already suffering the highest hospital asthma and cardio vascular disease rates in the State.

If Cape Wind and Governor Patrick were really concerned about the health of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Global Warming and our dependence on foreign oil, they would plant trees not turbines.

Environmental Injustice

The Chelsea Collaborative is fighting back! They are fighting what appears to be an unlikely candidate, energy developer Jim Gordon of Energy Management Inc and the Cape Wind project, who is being called, by some, an environmental hero; to keep a polluting fossil fuel burning power plant out of their already poor, disadvantaged and overly polluted community.

And the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is also fighting back. They are fighting this same developer who is determined to place 130 440' tall wind turbines and a 100' electrical platform filled with oil smack in the middle of a declared marine sanctuary critical to migratory birds, marine mammals and endangered species.

What we have here is Environmental Injustice at both ends of the spectrum.

Let's define Environmental Injustice:

"An environmental injustice exists when members of disadvantaged, ethnic, minority or other groups suffer disproportionately at the local, regional (sub-national), or national levels from environmental risks or hazards, and/or suffer disproportionately from violations of fundamental human rights as a result of environmental factors, and/or denied access to environmental investments, benefits, and/or natural resources, and/or are denied access to information; and/or participation in decision making; and/or access to justice in environment-related matters."

But, environmental injustice also includes:

'The interdependence of all species, and right to be free from ecological destruction.'

The town of Chelsea, Ma has been declared and Environmental Justice community by the EPA (*click to read what they say about the community of Chelsea and the environmental injustice they already suffer) any yet private energy developer Jim Gordon insists his addition to this community is nothing more than an answer to the growing need for more power.
But, whose power is he talking about? Certainly not the power of the people that live and work in Chelsea. This plant can operate 2,000 hours/year spewing sulfur, nitrogen oxide and 37 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and straight into the lungs of the citizens and school children of Chelsea, MA. In fact Gordon totally bypassed them and went straight to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office, and therefore obtained a local zoning waiver at the state levels and silencing their voices.

"If built, this power plant will affect ALL of Chelsea. Chelsea is just under 2 square miles with more than 35,000 residents. Thirty-two percent of Chelsea’s population lives below the US average income. Chelsea has 90 hazardous waste sites per square mile. Chelsea Creek is home to:

70-80% of New England’s Heating Fuel
100% of the Jet Fuel used at Logan International Airport
Road Salt for more than 200 New England cities and town
3 of the Massachusetts Action Center’s Award Winners for Worst of the Worst Polluters
Oil Storage Tanks holding +/- 22 Billion Gallons of Oil (per year)
Oil Spills totaling 96,653 gallons, over the past 15 years (41,866 over the past 6 months)

And Chelsea residents pay the price for all of the industry. Chelsea has the highest Asthma Hospitalization Rate in the State. Chelsea has the highest Major Cardio Vascular Diseases Hospitalization Rate in the State." *Quote from the Chelsea Collaborative.

On Cape Cod, there is a different situation but the same environmental injustice is occurring there at the hands of this developer.

The Nantucket Sound was declared in the early 1970s, a Cape and Islands State Marine Sanctuary to protect Nantucket Sound from industrial development by Massachusetts Legislature. In the 1980s, state officials nominated Nantucket Sound as a National Marine Sanctuary due to its unique ecological nature, endangered species habitat for many state and federally protected species, including roseate terns, piping plovers, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles, and grey seals.

Yet once again, Jim Gordon of EMI bypassed the People of Massachusetts and their Cape and Islands communities by going straight to the Federal Government to place his project, Cape Wind, in the middle of the Nantucket Sound where there is a donut-hole of federal waters.
Inside this donut-hole of Federal waters Cape Wind will dredge miles of industrial power cables, killing the life in the seabed and driving off species that depend on the Nantucket Sound for their very survival. Inside this donut-hole of Federal waters Cape Wind will erect 130 440' wind turbines with blades that move at over 200mph at their tips (and a 100' tall electrical platform filled with oil waiting for a catastrophic oil spill) which will kill migratory birds, bats and endangered species just as a facility off the coast of Norway killed off an entire breeding population of endangered White-tailed (Sea) Eagles and all of their babies in less than ten months. Inside this donut-hole of Federal waters the noise of pile driving will drive away marine mammals, and kill off their food sources, like squid, which may never return.

The Principles of Environmental Justice are probably best stated by this multinational group from the People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit:

PREAMBLE
WE, THE PEOPLE OF COLOR, gathered together at this multinational People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, to begin to build a national and international movement of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and communities, do hereby re-establish our spiritual interdependence to the sacredness of our Mother Earth; to respect and celebrate each of our cultures, languages and beliefs about the natural world and our roles in healing ourselves; to insure environmental justice; to promote economic alternatives which would contribute to the development of environmentally safe livelihoods; and, to secure our political, economic and cultural liberation that has been denied for over 500 years of colonization and oppression, resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples, do affirm and adopt these Principles of Environmental Justice:

1) Environmental Justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity and the interdependence of all species, and the right to be free from ecological destruction.

2) Environmental Justice demands that public policy be based on mutual respect and justice for all peoples, free from any form of discrimination or bias.

3) Environmental Justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced and responsible uses of land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other living things.

4) Environmental Justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, extraction, production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and nuclear testing that threaten the fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food.

5) Environmental Justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and environmental self-determination of all peoples.

6) Environmental Justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins, hazardous wastes, and radioactive materials, and that all past and current producers be held strictly accountable to the people for detoxification and the containment at the point of production.

7) Environmental Justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.

8) Environmental Justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free from environmental hazards.

9) Environmental Justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care.

10) Environmental Justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration On Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide.

11) Environmental Justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship of Native Peoples to the U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants affirming sovereignty and self-determination.

12) Environmental Justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies to clean up and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring the cultural integrity of all our communities, and provided fair access for all to the full range of resources.

13) Environmental Justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent, and a halt to the testing of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and vaccinations on people of color.

14) Environmental Justice opposes the destructive operations of multi-national corporations.

15) Environmental Justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands, peoples and cultures, and other life forms.

16) Environmental Justice calls for the education of present and future generations which emphasizes social and environmental issues, based on our experience and an appreciation of our diverse cultural perspectives.

17) Environmental Justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer choices to consume as little of Mother Earth's resources and to produce as little waste as possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to insure the health of the natural world for present and future generations.

As you will note, they do not call for more industrial development. They call for action to clean up our communities, make personal choices to consume as little of Mother Earth's resources and produce as little waste as possible and to respect the interdependence of all species and their right to be free from ecological destruction.

Jim Gordon: Cape Wind Developer Swings Both Ways

Jim Gordon's Energy Management Inc., the developer of the Cape Wind project, knows no bounds when it comes to energy development. While he and his thirty something year old company hide behind the development of America's first and largest off-shore wind farm saying it will lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, they are in the process of developing a fossil fuel dependent peaker power plant, for the poor already polluted community of Chelsea, MA. Yes when it comes to alternative energy, Jim Gordon and Energy Management Inc. swings both ways. As Dennis Duffy of EMI remarks, when asked about the apparent hypocrisy, "We're in the energy business. That's what we do."

On one side of that swinging pendulum we have the proposed Cape Wind project, touted as America's first clean and green off-shore wind farm the largest in the world, mind you, nearly twice the size of any built on the planet. On the other side, the pendulum swings to a proposed dirty fossil fuel dependent plant in Chelsea, MA.

What do both plants have in common? Absolutely nothing except when you follow the process, the loop-holes in regulation and, of course, the money they have, ironically, a lot in common. But yes they are both green; green as in the color of money.

They also have in common their circumventing of the local communities affected by them. Neither Cape Cod nor Chelsea, MA want it nor were they consulted before either project proposal. According to Gordon, "It just goes with the territory," he said. "If you believe you have a project that has merit that will adhere to the regulations and standards that govern that venue, go forward."

Loop-holes abound

So now we get to the "regulations and standards" that Gordon refers to. And there we find the loop-holes. To date, there are no regulations and standards (they are only, now, being developed by the Federal Government and are just in the draft stages) governing off-shore wind. How convenient for him and his company. As to diesel burning peaker plants, they escape most regulation and standards because there are intended for emergency use. Again, this loop-hole did not escape Gordon and EMI.

Cape Wind is attempting to take advantage of a loop-hole or shall we say donut hole in the Nantucket Sound which has been designated a marine sanctuary by the State of MA, off limits to industrial development. But right in the middle of the Sound, in the Horseshoe Shoal area, we find a donut hole of Federal waters. And that is, of course, where Gordon has decided to place his 24 square mile industrial wind power plant complete with 130 440' high turbines along with a 100' tall oil filled electrical platform thus avoiding any State regulation and taking advantage of the fact that there are no Federal regulations in place. In fact, when these regulations are in place Cape Wind will simply be 'grand-fathered in' something that, also, has not missed the calculated eye of this developer.

So what about the City of Chelsea, MA and the loop-hole there? According to an article from The Boston Independent Media Center titled Chelsea and Low Income Communities Fight Power Plant, Against Environmental Injustice "The residents started coming out in droves, basically saying that they were opposed to the power plant, contacting their state legislator and city councilors," said Rossane Bongiovanni, president of Chelsea’s City Council. "The City Council decided to take action and say, we don’t want this here, don’t send your proposal because we don’t want you in Chelsea." Yet, Energy Management Inc.—the same company heralded for their plans to stage a wind power project off Cape Cod—decided to circumvent local authorities by presenting their proposal directly to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office, and therefore obtain a local zoning waiver at the state levels. "In essence, the city of Chelsea would have almost no say on this power plant if it wasn’t for these public hearings," said Bongiovanni.

Meanwhile, this diesel peaker power plant will spew 37 tons of particulate matter per year to the atmosphere of a community already suffering among the highest hospitalized asthma rates in the State of MA. This plant is slated to be built within 100 yards of an elementary school. Diesel peaker plants emit small particles of soot and dust that can lodge in the lungs of those living in that community and increase the cancer rate.

Who lives in that community? Minorities do. Chelsea is comprised of poor Latino, black and immigrant families who have the lowers income in the State.

Intermittent Operation

Also, in common is the intermittent operation of Cape Wind and the Diesel Power plant proposed for Cape Cod and Chelsea, MA. Wind turbines operate when the wind is blowing when it doesn't it relies on fossil fuel based power plants.
A diesel fired peaker power plant operates during times of peak use like in the heat of the summer when the air-conditioners are going full bore. Of course during that time the air quality is stagnant and that means increased pollution and difficulty breathing for asthma sufferers, the elderly and those with respiratory disease.

Environmental Injustice

Because of the burdens on a poor already polluted community Chelsea has been declared an Environmental Injustice Community, one of the only designations of its kind in MA.
Of course, when it comes to alternative energy Gordon, EMI and Cape Wind are equal environmental injustice opportunists. Their alternatives swing as far as the pendulum can swing from a so called clean energy project to a dirty one. And it swings both ways. Naturally both swing toward money in the developer's private pocket.

For more information go to:
http://www.saveoursound.org
http://boston.indymedia.org/feature/display/198491/index.php and
http://www.chelseacollab.org/index.html
http://donatracy.gather.com/

Required Reading by All-

Seoul, Korea- Green Manifesto

October 23, 2006

“Humankind in the 21st century is suffering from environmental pollution and ecological destruction caused by unchecked industrialization around the globe. It is our obligation to do our best to minimize development and investment which would neglect the protection of natural resources remembering the Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza who once said “even if the world comes to the end tomorrow, I will plant an apple tree today.” Accordingly, the environmental activists in Korea and abroad participating in the 2006 International Workshop on the Landscape Ecology and the Problem with Wind Farms, declare the following three points which should guide our activities in the years to come.”

1] The construction of and governmental support to those huge-size commercial wind farms must be reconsidered with prudence and deliberation, because they are the main source of various environmental problems including the destruction of natural landscape and the lives of inhabitants in local communities.

2] With a definite purpose to correct those prevailing fantasy-like views on wind energy, national governments and international organizations are sincerely advised to provide financial and institutional support to those scientific efforts to reveal the facts of environmental destruction by the massive proliferation of wind energy, as well as its low efficiency.

3] In order to prevent the reckless expansion of those inefficient and destructive wind farm complexes into our precious and beautiful countryside, we must enhance public awareness and education by way of a global network media campaign which could help enlighten citizens, developers, public servants, and political leaders.

Follow this link for more on the above;

”Soon we 'celebrate' the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy.”

Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman BLS, Germany.

Sound Views on Wind Energy

The opposition to industrial wind power has been given a bad name by the industry, politicians and an uninformed media.

With this blog, our hope is to establish a dialog with others who believe we don't need to polarize ourselves over the issue but rather to understand what is at stake and come up with viable solutions that will help and not harm our environment. The old Nature vs. Nurture paradigm needs to be replaced with Nature and Nurture and it is our belief that it can.

My background is as an advocate for wildlife, particularly the Birds of Prey. Over 25 years ago I founded a not for profit center devoted to the health and well being of raptors called the Hudson Valley Raptor Center. It is my belief that through these magnificent beings we can learn more about the environment we all share and that with that knowledge of our inborn connection we can, as the Native Americans so wisely suggest, learn to walk lightly on the Earth.

In spite of industry slanted reports on industrial wind power plants having little to no affect on bird mortality, as one who works in the trenches with the injured raptors, I can tell you this is not true. Some suggest that it is worth the sacrifice of our wildlife today for a cleaner environment tomorrow but I do not buy that. To me, the sacrifice must be on a more personal level as in Conservation which is not even being given any plausibility at all but is the key to not only saving energy, lessening our dependence on foreign oil but cleaning up the mess we have made. It makes no sense to me to further harm our already struggling environment, wildlife and wild places in order to save them.

Together we can find solutions that are based on Nature and Nurture not as opposites but as integral parts of this big puzzle we call life.