What follows is an edited collection of reader feedbacks from the Gazette Web site in response to a story about Edgartown seeking to intervene on the side of the Cape Cod Commission in the case against Cape Wind before the Energy Facilities Siting Board. The complete and unedited collection of comments can be read at mvgazette.com.

Thank you, my beloved Edgartown. If the people who say they care about the environment cared as much about people, they would let this thing go, realizing that the negative, irreversible impact this project has on the community — in so many ways — is far more damaging than so-called global warming. (My belief that in a just a few short years man-made global warming will come to be seen as the biggest hoax in history is a conversation for another day). There are alternatives to this project at this location, alternatives that are more appropriate and less damaging, divisive, and alienating. Thank you, Edgartown, may good sense and reason prevail.

Sara Piazza


and Brookline

If the Energy Facilities Siting Board is charged with “ensuring a reliable energy supply,” why is it involving itself with wind-generated electricity?

Wind energy is among the least reliable energy sources. For every single watt that Cape Wind is planning to produce, conventional electricity generating plants will have to be standing by ready to instantaneously replace wind-generated electricity.

If the Energy Facilities Siting Board is truly concerned with reliable energy, it would stand in opposition to any wind power project that proposes to connect itself to the electric power grid.

Yaakov Cohn


Is the public aware of the horrendous effects of these “environmentally clean” wind farms on the wildlife of the area? Have you seen a beautiful and probably threatened migratory bird sliced in half or maimed by these “clean machines?” They are like giant scissors. They are placed where the best windcurrents are — right where these birds travel, twice a year, following their migratory routes. Has research been done on the effects of the sound of these machines? On fish, shellfish and wildlife? There is a reason that they are not placed in a town or on a beach. The sound is unbearable. The results here in Norway have been disastrous — as far as preserving the nesting areas and the birds. What really counts here folks? Think about it.

Debbie (Belisle) Pedersen

Spydeberg, Norway

Offshore windfarms have failed in Europe. The salt air environment will ultimately ruin the equipment. The company will declare bankruptcy and the investors will simply walk away. Here’s a plan: require the company to post a bond equal to the cost of removal of the entire enterprise, once it fails. Otherwise — if built — we’ll see the corroding remnants of those units for decades.

Bill Schrader


Cape Wind is the right project in the wrong place.

Regarding the birds (not to mention bats, that are presently experiencing a strange regional die-off as well), how clever of Cape Wind to propose erecting their industrial wind plant next to the great Atlantic flyway! Move over skyscrapers, you’ve got some serious competition coming. As to the statement [by an unsigned Web reader comment which is not published here] “the most serious threats to birds are the pollutants being spewed by nonrenewable energy and related environmental damage caused by global warming,” do you really think Cape Wind will replace those facilities? Not likely; any power generated by Cape Wind will simply be added to the grid so we can continue to lead our wasteful lives of over consumption.

This kind of god-squad argument is suspect in any case, especially coming from people who are so invested in Cape Wind that they’d never even consider other options.

Don Ogden