...We suggest that the time for action is at hand. If the Obama administration is serious about the promise of alternative energies, there is more than enough information on the record to justify giving Cape Wind the go-ahead. A nation that is unwilling to put solid ideas to the test is one that will inherit plenty of wind — but no electrical power to show for it.
Note: Click here to read this Worcester Telegram & Gazette editorial

Eight years ago, I was strongly opposed to the wind farm on Nantucket Sound. I didn't think it was worth it to trade the aesthetic and spiritual values of a beautiful natural environment for a limited contribution to our nation's energy problems. Today, I strongly support Cape Wind.

Note: Click here to read this Op Ed in the Cape Cod Times

As the U.S. Interior Department nears a decision on Cape Wind's proposal to build 130 wind turbines on Nantucket Sound, rhetoric rises from oceanic depths to 400-foot molehills.

Opponents have allied with Wampanoags aiming to protect views of sacred grounds, er, sacred waters, er, sacred something, when tribes aren't busy promoting casinos.  As a fan of Cape Wind, I'd be satisfied with a large fraction of local electricity issuing from silent, nonpolluting technology.

Graceful and viable aren't good enough for NIMBYs; they expect magic, as if windmills could be invisible as well. Houses, work places, shops and the wires that carry electricity aren't invisible. Cars, ships delivering goods from China and the machines that wash our clothes and dishes aren't silent. If we've survived those, we can survive wind-powered generators.

Opponents claim windmills will "industrialize" Nantucket Sound. That horse escaped the barn 300 years ago during the first oil boom, local whaling, which included smoky, beachfront try-works to render the blubber.
Note: Click here to read this Op Ed in the Cape Cod Times by Tom Gelsthorpe

...The environmental concerns have been laid to rest by thorough review. Even the latest charge, that the Bush administration "rushed" the review process, doesn't challenge the conclusions officials reached. The aesthetic concerns opponents raise, are, at best, overstated.

The U.S. has lagged behind other countries in the development of offshore wind power for years. Far from being rushed, Cape Wind has been through 9 years of redundant reviews. More delay is pointless. Issue your ruling, Mr. Secretary, and let's get to work.
Note:

Click here to read this Metrowest Daily News editorial

...We understand the concerns of Native Americans and other opponents who love and admire the beauty of Cape Cod.

But America’s future depends on energy independence – and the Cape Wind project is a step in that direction. The wind farm would supply, on average, the equivalent of 75 percent of the energy needs of Cape Cod and the Islands.
Note: Click here to read this editorial in the Springfield Republican

...No matter where you build in the eastern United States, you are likely to mar someone's view or disturb land that some group considers valuable. In this case, the plan's potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

The wind farm's developers aim to provide 75 percent of the electricity for the Cape and nearby islands. And the project would be an early test of wind power's feasibility, taking advantage of the area's rare natural setting to push costs down.   The tribes and other locals, on the other hand, would have to put up with windmills many miles offshore. Mr. Salazar should move Cape Wind along.
Note: Click here to read this Washington Post Editorial

In his Jan. 14 guest commentary, Joe Kennedy announced that he now opposes the development of offshore wind energy. By doing so, Mr. Kennedy has put himself at odds with not only the energy and environmental policies of the United States, Massachusetts and Europe, but also with the most respected environmental and health advocacy organizations, as well as his own prior positions.
Note: Click here to read this Op Ed by Dennis Duffy in the Cape Cod Times

Recent Letters to the Editor in favor of Cape Wind published in USA Today, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

...Interior Department officials pledge to get the project off the ground by April. The Boston Globe reported last week that Mr. Salazar is allowing public comment until Feb. 12 and hopes to have a compromise worked out by March 1. If no compromise is reached, the feds could then take the matter into their own hands.

Cape Wind is a worthy, environmentally responsible proposal — and a patient one. After nine years, it’s time to get the 130 turbines installed and turning.
Note:

Click here to read this Worcester Telegram & Gazette editorial

...People opposed to Cape Wind often frame the debate as between preserving the pristine nature of Nantucket Sound versus the change that will come with an industrial-scale wind farm. I think this is a false premise that Salazar needs to examine, because Nantucket Sound is not pristine, and it is certainly changing right now, even though those changes may be hard to see.

With our reliance on fossil fuels, we are changing the temperature and the chemistry of Nantucket Sound. Those changes are impossible to see from the land and we may not notice them, but fish will notice them and move as a result. And shellfish, from large lobsters and scallops to small pteropods at the base of the food chain, will fight against an acidifying ocean that will damage their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

And, of course, warmer oceans mean sea level rise, and a warmer atmosphere means more energy and more severe storms, and the result of that will be an eroding shoreline and the loss of wetlands that are no longer free to migrate as sea levels change.

And this doesn't even include the obvious and news-making oil spills. I am a longtime volunteer and past board president of the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, which led the cleanup of 98,000 gallons of No. 6 oil spilled by Bouchard in Buzzards Bay on the way to the Cape's power plant.

Nor does it include the eutrophication caused by nitrogen loading from inadequate sewage treatment. So as we do nothing to change whence we get our power, we are changing Nantucket Sound for the worse. There is certainly no status quo to protect. We should be talking about what kind of change we want. No change is not an option.
Note:

Click here to read this Op Ed in the New Bedford Standard Times by John Bullard, President of Sea Education Association and former mayor of New Bedford