Cape Cod Times, March 5:

Yarmouth selectmen don't speak for all

When the hearing on the Cape Wind energy project is held March 10, the Yarmouth Board of Selectmen has promised to attend and speak against the wind farm.

I would appreciate their spokesman noting that their opinions are those of the five selectmen and not of the majority of the citizens of the town. There has never been a vote at town meeting or on a ballot for those of us who support the project.

Since I am disabled and will be unable to attend the meeting, I am submitting a letter to the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service urging the approval of the application. I hope other Cape Codders will do the same to counteract the NIMBYs.

Barbara Hart, Yarmouthport

Nantucket Inquirer & Mirror, February 20:

To The Editor:

Reading last week's anti-wind farm letters in the paper was like reading bad fiction. It is frustrating that after seven years of trying to disseminate truthful information about the Cape Wind project and the merits of wind energy in our region, misinformation and sensationalism abound.

I object to the histrionic comparisons of the wind farm to Manhattan, as if we will have walls of skyscrapers from end to end blocking views for miles. Yes, we will have 130 pylons in an area the size of Manhattan, which leaves plenty of space for boating, fishing, and even rescue missions, should the need arise. I have utter faith in our Coast Guard, boat captains and pilots and their ability to navigate amongst wind turbines that stand six to nine football fields apart. "The same physical and visual impact as New York City?!!!" I think not! Let's leave the melodrama to the tabloids.

There have also been concerns expressed over the lights of the wind farm and its effect on the night sky. Having traveled to Denmark to see the effect for myself, I can say that from six miles away, which will be the closest distance of the wind farm to land on the Cape side, I had to squint to see the lights. At 11-14 miles away, Nantucket will be hard pressed to see anything.

These tabloid exaggerations do nothing to arrive at honest answers and reasonable solutions to the wind farm question. Yes, we do need to protect our island and the environment for our children and our children's children, and we can only do that by keeping crude oil and toxic waste out of our Sound and fossil fuel emissions out of our air. Let's protect Nantucket Sound by keeping its air, land and waters clean and free from polluting energies.

Laura Wasserman

Martha's Vineyard Times, February 14:

Impacts of the wind farm

I came to Martha's Vineyard for a summer job over 10 years ago and never left. The natural beauty and sense of community have held me here. The Island is certainly a place that deserves our thoughtful protection. What distinguishes an admirable effort toward local preservation from a "Not In My Back Yard" attitude are the benefits of preservation on one hand and on the other, the implication that some other neighborhood should bear the costs we are unwilling to. The Cape Wind project would alter our seascape for decades, so let us carefully consider what else the wind farm can do.

Cape Cod has the worst air quality in Massachusetts, with the Islands slightly better. This translates to high asthma rates, mercury in our fish, and additional strain on ponds and estuaries, and their shellfish beds.... State regulators have said that Cape Wind would directly reduce production at local power plants with much higher pollution outputs like the Canal Power Plant. Ian Bowles, Secretary of the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs states that Cape Wind's production would be the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off Cape and Islands roads each year. This would also lead to over a thousand tons per year reduction of pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and a reduction of over 770,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

We now know that Global Climate Change is inevitable.

Scientists assure us that much disaster can be averted if we quickly undertake ambitious plans to change the way we consume fossil fuels. Our community has the unique opportunity to take a huge step towards that goal. In fact we have a responsibility.

The wind farm would provide the equivalent of three quarters of all the electricity used on the Cape and Islands, without burning fossil fuels. This alone will not change the global climate, but each community must do its part. Having the first large offshore wind farm in America will greatly ease the way for other cities and towns to make their own necessary changes.

Two extensive federal reviews of Cape Wind have indicated that harm to the local environment would be negligible and short-term, aside from changes to the view. On the other hand the environmental impact of not building Cape Wind would be far worse.

Imagine, we can lead the way fighting climate change, reduce local air and water pollution and increase our available energy, and all independently of stripmined coal or dwindling foreign oil supplies and the geopolitical dangers they entail. The proposed array of windmills will actually embody preservation more than an unspoiled view.

If looking at windmills leaves us painfully aware that power costs more than money, perhaps that will help us. I for one will look out and see the grace of a community embracing solutions and hope for our future.

JJ Johnston
Vineyard Haven

Cape Cod Times, February 12:

Wattley's experience belied by comments

I am confused by the position taken by Glenn Wattley of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound in the Minerals Management Service's draft report on the Cape Wind project.

On the alliance's Web site, Wattley is said to have 32 years' experience in the energy industry, but in the alliance press release he is quoted as saying the Cape Wind project would increase rates for consumers.

Someone with his experience should be aware of Market Rule 1, which dictates the running of the ISO-New England grid. Further, he should be aware of section III.1.7.6 dealing with scheduling and dispatch of plants, which states, "The ISO shall schedule Day-Ahead and schedule dispatch in Real-Time Resources economically on the basis of the least-cost, security-constrained dispatch and the prices and operating characteristics offered by Market Participants." In essence, that means that if Cape Wind can't compete it would not be dispatched by ISO-New England for operation.

Also, someone with his experience would realize that the electricity market in Massachusetts is deregulated and you are free to buy your electricity from more than just NStar.

Quotes like this make me question his experience and his credibility.

Douglas Berger, Buzzards Bay

Cape Cod Times, February 2:

Candidates: Heed 'winds' of change

Do any of our state and local politicians still have good long term memory, stretching back as little as a couple of years ago? The Democratic gubernatorial primary might be a history lesson for them.

Attorney General Thomas Reilly wanted to become governor, and thought his vigorous opposition to Cape Wind would get him into the corner office. Neophyte politician Deval Patrick studied the issue and came out pro-wind farm. He trounced Reilly for the nomination and became our governor.

Most of the region's officeholders have been anti-wind since the days when that was a popular stance. But aren't they willing to represent their constituencies now that the winds of change have shifted? The long awaited MMS draft report is favorable. Survey results show two thirds of Cape and Islanders and 86 percent of voters statewide are in favor of building the wind farm. So isn't it sound politics to be a willing follower if you didn't have the foresight to be a leader?

Intractable candidates for re-election may be in for a surprise. Some may win what A. G. Reilly won — more leisure.

Richard C. Bartlett
Cotuit

Martha's Vineyard Times, January 31:

In support of Cape Wind

I would like to reply to the letter last week from Daniel Benefieta, arguing against the Cape Wind proposal. The first objection he stated in his letter was that the proposed farm is right in the middle of an oil tanker shipping lane, and that the obstruction will no doubt cause oil tanker accidents and oil spills. Well, if there were oil tankers going through Nantucket Sound, wouldn't we have noticed by now? Wouldn't there be a hue and cry about this by now? Especially going over the shallow waters of Horseshoe Shoals.

The second objection is that the construction of the wind farm will tear up the ocean floor and it would never recover, wiping out the fishing and shellfishing industry. No one denies that the construction will temporarily disrupt the seafloor. But the wonderful thing about bottom-dwelling organisms, including clams, oysters, and scallops, is that their young are free swimming, part of the plankton. Once the construction is finished, not only will the seafloor repopulate, but the new concrete and pipes of the wind farm will be additional support for marine life. The wind farm will become a series of reefs where more sea life will live than before. Managed properly, the wind farm will be a boon for the shellfishing industry.

These reasons are precisely why the wind farm project is sailing through the government regulatory hearings. Our government is here to help protect our resources, but they stay out of the way when no real threat exists.

I'll be so happy to see the wind farm off on the horizon when it is completed. I will be able to look at it and think: there is where my electricity is being generated, instead of a coal or oil burning power plant. We'll all be able to breathe freely about that.

Jim Osborn
Vineyard Haven

Cape Cod Times, January 30:

Old sailor welcomes wind turbines

As a many-time visitor to Cape Cod over the 87 years of my life, I take strong issue with "Save Our Sound" and its self-centered imagination as to what they think could happen if the Cape Wind energy project were to be completed.

Save Our Sound advertising refers to fishing losses, and safety risks for ferry operators, and says "thousands" of jobs would be lost and Cape Cod's $2 billion tourism industry would be at risk. These statements, in my judgment, are conjecture only.

When I was younger, I was an active sailor in the sound. We used navigation charts and a depth sounder to stay clear of the reefs. Nevertheless, in gloomy or rainy weather, we avoided sailing because we did not have radar, nor did we have a fixed positioning device, also known as GPO. However, commercial fishermen and ferry operators have these types of equipment.

If I were to sail there again, under wind turbines, I would feel completely safe and look up in awe at these giant blades whirling, reducing energy prices on Cape Cod, while giving me and thousands of other visitors a magnificent vista to enjoy.

Alfred F. Crommett
Shrewsbury

January 26, Patriot Ledger:
READER’S VIEW - Revolution in the air

By AILEEN LUBOLD, Oak Bluffs
Offshore wind offers an immediate, clean, safe and effective answer to both global warming and energy security.

Given the stark urgency of global warming, now is the time to take every action available to slow the impacts of this problem.

In fact, we should have started long ago.

Offshore wind is a big step in the right direction, and can contribute quickly to a reduction in global warming pollution.

From local jobs to clean energy, this project is right for America and right for the Cape.

In years to come, the people of Massachusetts will be proud of this contribution to the clean energy revolution.

Massachusetts politicians should openly endorse and support Cape Wind, and see that Massachusetts breaks ground on this project as soon as possible.

Cape Cod Times, January 25:

East Coast is perfect for harnessing wind

I was fortunate to attend a recent forum at Cape Cod Community College on the production of electricity using ocean wave energy. This new technology has the potential to make a significant contribution to America's power needs.
Those of us attending learned that the West Coast of the U.S. has the best potential to utilize this source of energy, while our East Coast has the best potential to provide electricity from the wind.
It is time to support local efforts toward wind-generated electricity, both onshore and offshore. It's time to make a difference, for ourselves and for generations to follow.

Larry S. Gordon
Centerville

Cape Cod Times, January 21:

Don't like the facts? Change the subject

One thing I've always disliked about Cape Wind opponents is the way they change the subject when confronted with data they can't refute.
Take the initial criticism of the draft environmental impact statement from the U.S. Minerals Management Service: Glenn Wattley, chief executive officer of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, "pointed out an economic comparison of the alternatives that seemed to indicate the cost of electricity from the project would be significantly higher than current rates," according to your report.
Why does Wattley discuss electricity prices in response to an environmental report?
William Delahunt "released a letter ... sent to him Jan. 11 by the acting director of the Federal Aviation Administration, which said the wind farm could have 'previously unidentified adverse effects' on planes from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket," according to the Boston Globe.
The last time I looked, aviation safety is not an environmental issue.
I'm not saying these aren't important issues. I am saying, however, that this report appears to contain a vast amount of credible environmental analysis. Of course, since almost all of this analysis works against them, Cape Wind critics choose to change the subject €¦ again.
David Kent
Falmouth

Boston Globe, January 18:

The unnatural beauty of wind farms

DIRT ROADS wind through woods; cows graze in green fields; white farmhouses stand proud beside the road; ancient maples align with rock walls; lobster buoys hang on weathered walls; boats sleep; a lighthouse stands as solid as the rocks; sailboat masts blow against a blue sky - as a New Englander, these are images I have known and loved all my life. They are not images of nature, but they somehow enhance it.
One of my daughters is in college in Indiana. To get there I head west and drive for hours. Not yet halfway there, one thing that perks me up is the anticipation of passing two wind farms. They're magnificent, like giants moving along the horizon, set between water and sky. The eye doesn't want to let go of watching them.
They may well become tourist attractions. Imagine Cape Wind-watching boats full of parents wanting their children to see these new beasts that sprang from the sea, that move with the wind, silent against the setting sun.
AMANDA KOBAYASHI
South Portland, Maine

Barnstable Patriot, January 11:

Save our land

Maps of an anticipated one-meter sea level rise show global warming will flood land on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Hyannis land near the harbor and downtown Nantucket will be under water, as will much of Edgartown and Vineyard Haven. An enlarged Pamet River in Truro will make the land north an island. You can access http://www/civilsocietyinstitute.org/capecod/ for details.
Global warming and local illness are intensified by nearby fossil-fueled power plants spewing carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions, while Cape Wind would prevent burning 113 million gallons of oil annually. America’s per capita use of oil and metals is 32 times the average of developing countries – we undoubtedly waste energy. But locally we have an opportunity to use southeastern Massachusetts’ strong and steady coastal winds to generate clean electricity, which can also economically power plug-in hybrid cars when they become available soon.
The December World Global Warming conference, convened to strengthen the Kyoto Protocol, made some progress after the U.S. responded to aggressive world pressure. NASA scientist James Hanson testified at the American Geophysical Union’s recent conference that our world is reacting more quickly to rising temperatures than previously expected - for example, Greenland is losing massive ice. Many scientists believe atmospheric carbon dioxide’s level, now at 383 parts per million, is too high and we must work urgently and creatively to get it back down to 350. Hopefully, our to-be-elected national leaders will chart an aggressive course, emphasizing renewable energy and other actions to stabilize global warming.
With $100 per barrel oil here now, what can each of us do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save our land? Energy conservation and supporting Cape Wind and land wind turbines are my choices – what are yours?
Jim Liedell, Yarmouth Port