On Sunday night opponents of wind development off Vineyard shores — including selectmen, fishermen, Wampanoags and a Republican candidate for Massachusetts governor — were given a megaphone to voice their views.
Hosted by POINT (Protect Our Islands Now for Tomorrow), a group led by Andrew Goldman of Chilmark, the forum drew a large crowd to the Chilmark Community Center.
“We will have the largest concentration of turbines anywhere in the world,” declared Mr. Goldman, who moderated the forum.
And while he acknowledged the need to reduce the output of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Mr. Goldman directly challenged Gov. Deval Patrick’s focus on the technology, particularly in Vineyard waters. He cited unchecked political machinery and an ongoing concern for the ecological impacts of the turbines.
West Tisbury selectman Richard Knabel agreed, lambasting what he called the state’s “brute force tactics” and “blunderbuss approach” in pushing wind power.
“I won’t stand for being called a Nimby,” he said, criticizing the state’s Ocean Management Plan, which he said saw virtually no input from the Islands and would most directly affect and undercut the Vineyard’s ability to appeal development.
Particularly troubling to Mr. Knabel is a bill in the Massachusetts state legislature which remains in limbo after it failed to pass before the legislature recessed for the summer. The bill, the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act, seeks to streamline the permitting process for land-based turbines.
“It’s as bad a piece of legislation as I’ve seen in my 40 years of involvement with environmental and energy affairs,” Mr. Knabel said, claiming the law would allow developers to circumvent the traditional filters of zoning, cultural and environmental regulation.
The Dukes County Fishermen’s Association, which has filed a federal lawsuit over Cape Wind, was represented on Sunday night by Warren Doty and Buddy Vanderhoop.
Mr. Doty, who is also a Chilmark selectman, expressed his frustration with the state’s lack of communication with local fishermen. He had attended a hearing held by the Minerals Management Service on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cape Wind, and called the data collected by the state about local fisheries “extremely inadequate,” citing testimony from fellow fishermen.
“Greg Mayhew stood up at the hearing and said ‘My boat, The Unicorn, individually caught more fish on Horseshoe Shoal than you say exists in all of Massachusetts,’ ” Mr. Doty said.
He said Horseshoe Shoal remains extremely valuable as a fishing ground, supporting populations of squid, fluke, sea bass, scup, sea clams and conch among other species.
“The state and Cape Wind have told us that fishing is dead,” Mr. Doty said. “We don’t believe that. We think commercial fishing will continue and these are the areas where we want to fish.”
Mr. Vanderhoop was more strident in his appraisal of Cape Wind.
“It’s despicable to turn this place into an industrial park,” he said. “Why don’t you put the windmills off the Hamptons?” he added, drawing laughter.
Bettina Washington, historic preservation officer for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), framed the issue in even stronger language.
“We are under attack,” she said. “It’s not enough to say you’re from Martha’s Vineyard. You have to be willing to protect it.”
Ms. Washington related the Wampanoag creation story of Martha’s Vineyard of Moshup wading through Nantucket Sound, dragging his foot along the north shore of the Island. Cuttyhunk and Noman’s, areas south of the Island which have been approved for the construction of an additional 166 turbines, also hold a place in Wampanoag mythology and were ancestral lands that would be desecrated by the introduction of wind farms, she said.
“We are not against wind,” Ms. Washington said, in what was a familiar refrain of the evening, “But there’s not a balance. In our world we try to achieve a balance.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker agreed with the call for a more balanced approach to energy.
“I’m all for diversification,” he said, “but this is not diversification, this is a big bet.”
Mr. Baker proposed buying hydropower from Quebec as Maine and Vermont have done, and questioned the wisdom of requiring that renewable energy be produced in Massachusetts under the 2008 Green Communities Act. He said that the Patrick administration’s insistence on wind power represented an environmental “big bet.” The two other candidates for governor, incumbent Deval Patrick and independent Tim Cahill were unable to attend the event, although Mr. Goldman read a statement prepared by the Cahill campaign denouncing Cape Wind.
James Pritchard of West Tisbury, the lone proponent of wind power who spoke, said the Mass Audubon Society studied Cape Wind for nine years and endorsed the project. Mr. Goldman said Mass Audubon was influenced by a close relationship with the administration.
This article appears in August 10, 2010.
Hi Mr. Ayer,
Thank you for your support. Mass Audubon’s position on the Cape Wind Offshore Renewable Energy Project has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Some critiques of our action have no merit or basis in fact. We are providing the following information to clarify our involvement in the review of this project:
Mass Audubon has never accepted or been promised financial remuneration in exchange for its position of support for the Cape Wind project. Those who assert this claim have never presented evidence to back such a claim – innuendo is not evidence. Mass Audubon request of the applicant and permitting agencies that the proposal be extensively reviewed, and we submitted those concerns as part of the public comment review process to the US Army Corps of Engineers as the permitting agency at the time.
Mass Audubon conducted extensive avian research since 2002 to provide support for our own environmental review and to contribute to the review by the Corps and MMS. We independently raised funds to pay for the cost of boat and airplane charter and made public the results. We also provided our results to the agencies at no cost. We conducted multiple years of satellite telemetry work to better understand the use of Nantucket Sound by long-tailed ducks. The results of this research and all our avian research on the Cape Wind project are available at this web site http://www.massaudubon.org/wind/avian_research.php. Our support of Cape Wind reflects the careful analysis of our extensive research as well as the work of others.
For more information regarding Mass Audubon’s position on Cape Wind, and wind energy more broadly, please visit: http://www.massaudubon.org/wind
If you or others have questions regarding our position, please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Best regards,
Jan Kruse
Communications Manager
Mass Audubon
208 South Great Road
Lincoln, MA 01773
(P) 781.259.2134
(C) 781.738.0034
(F) 781.259.8899
jkruse@massaudubon.org
www.massaudubon.org
Wow, the Vineyard really has changed a lot in the last several years, if only ONE person spoke in favor of this project.
This one made me laugh:
“We are not against wind,” Ms. Washington said, in what was a familiar refrain of the evening, “But there’s not a balance. In our world we try to achieve a balance.”
Really, Bettina? And how are you generating electricity in a way that harmonizes with other life? Because THAT’S the balance, unless you eschew the use of electricity (and I know you don’t). Oh right – you’re just outsourcing that to dirty coal-burning power plants that pollute other people’s air, kill other people’s kids, or oil-fired plants that kill other people’s fishing livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico. As long as it’s not your backyard, you’ll take that electricity & ignore the impacts to other people. Complete, cowardly NIMBYISM.
I assure you, people in the Gulf of Mexico and the hills of West Virginia love their landscape just as much as you love Nantucket Sound. So figure out how to generate your own electricity, or stop using it.
The Turbine Peddlers Represent Green Fraud………..Message from a Wildlife Biologist
There is growing worldwide opposition the deadly propeller style wind turbine for good reason. There has been a corporate/government cover-up for over 25 years concerning the extreme danger they pose to birds and bats. For those that have not seen it, take a look at the YouTube video “fatal accident with vulture on a windmill”. A Griffon Vulture gets smashed out of the sky by the innocent looking blades of a propeller style wind turbine. The wind turbine in the video is spinning at just 12 rpm or about half speed. After seeing this you will understand what is coming to the local and migratory bird populations, all over the world.
In Canada, a recent study of bird and bat mortality at Wolfe Island’s 82-turbine wind farm found 600 birds and more than a thousand bats were killed by the windmill blades in a six-month period.
None of this should come as a surprise. Over the last 25 years in Altamont Pass, more than 2,000 golden eagles have been killed by the blades of the propeller-style wind turbine. The corrupt wind/oil industry (they are one in the same) paid experts to say it was just an aberration and that Altamont was unique. It is a lie.
The corrupt U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is part of this green fraud. They deliberately looked the other way while wind farms were built in the habitat of the condor and whooping crane. They chose not to prosecute many thousands of wind industry violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They even helped write and pass the “No Surprises” clause into federal law, which gives this industry a free pass for killing endangered species. There is no difference between them and the corrupt MMS.
The most insidious impact from the use of propeller style wind turbines, is the slaughter of migratory Birds. The negative footprint from wind energy is far greater than the obvious. A perfect example is the Whooping Crane that travels 2500 miles only to be chopped up in the thousands of spinning blades along their migration route. The critically endangered Egyptian Vulture is another migratory victim of these turbines.
Paid off experts fraudulently cite collisions with power lines as being the primary reason. This same fraudulent excuse was given for missing Condors in California. Now the condor is regularly fed at feeding stations far away from the turbines to keep them alive.
Remember this………when the propeller style wind turbine is introduced into their habitats, it becomes the number one cause of death for rare and endangered bird species. Despite deflective statements from the wind industry, cats, cars, windows, buildings, etc. are not the problem. These mortality factors did not kill off the Red Kite populations that have disappeared from Germany and Italy. The prop wind turbines have killed them off.
At the current rate of wind farm development, dozens of bird species will soon face extinction from this diabolical source of energy. The truth is no bird or bat is safe around a propeller-style wind turbine and the cumulative impacts….. devastating.
Regardless of how many are built, energy from the inefficient propeller style wind turbine will NEVER even come close to solving North America’s energy needs. Communities need to be told this before they embrace these killers.
Communities also need to be told that the day is coming when far superior wind turbines, without the flawed deadly propeller design, will be implemented across the world. How long this will take depends on how long the bird/bat mortality lie is perpetuated the wind industry.
Below is factual information covered up by the wind industry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for over 25 years. This came from a report put together by Ornithologists in Poland. The link for this report is on Poland’s Wind Energy web site. To my knowledge it is the only example of the true bird mortality impact ever made public by the wind Industry.
http://www.psew.pl/en/guidelines_for_assessment_of_wind_farms_impact_on_birds.htm
4. Development of wind projects is likely to cause:
a. Bird mortality caused by collisions with operating turbines and/or elements
of auxiliary infrastructure, in particular overhead power lines;
b. Decrease in population due to loss and fragmentation of habitats caused
by deterring effect of the wind turbines and/or development of
communication and energy infrastructure related to operations of the wind
turbines,
c. Disturbance to populations, in particular to short- and long – range bird
migrations (the barrier effect).
5. Mortality caused by collisions and loss of habitats are key in terms of likely
adverse effects on birds populations.
6. The extent of effects on bird population is diversified, depending mainly upon
the location of the wind turbines – from almost no or negligible effects on life
expectancy of bird population, to significant effects with significant loss of
habitats and high mortality caused by collisions.
Most people are not aware that Europe has sustained large declines in both local and migratory bird populations over the last 20 years. These declines coincide with the installation of tens of thousands of propeller style wind turbines.
Despite media bias and ignorance, educated people have to get organized and reject the propeller style wind turbine. The industry will not move away from these killers unless they are forced to. Across the world organized efforts by concerned citizens are winning battles every day against this industry. They want to put a stop to the millions of birds are slaughtered each year by these turbines. Especially the rare and endangered species. I encourage everyone to research this. If they do, they will find that the industry is corrupt to the core and these turbines have a tremendously negative environmental footprint.
Good for you Carol Lamson. The article should end ……they all said smugly.” As the Gulf of Mexico turns into a cesspool of crude. As the world as a whole is having the hottest summer on record. As another large chunk of ice shears from the Greenland ice sheet. Hipocrites. They don’t have answers to our energy predicament but sure love brandishing the torches and pitchforks.
NIMBY,NIMBY,NIMBY!!!…Placing wind turbines off the private beaches of M.V. will have the least impact on the great unwashed hordes. Enjoy the view!!! Ever hear of Karma!?!…but keep those “coexist” bumper stickers…the irony is priceless!
This article does not mention that Doug Sederholm, member of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission who is also Chair of the Wind Energy Work Group, also made a very fact filled presentation about the MVC’s work to date on this issue. Members of the MVC also brought never seen before simulations to the forum of what the State’s project would look like from the Aquinnah cliffs and from Lucy Vincent beach. The reporter also doesn’t mention that a thoughtful presentation of the legislative history was given by former member of the MA House of Representatives Eric Turkington.
Carol Lampson – it seems you haven’t been here in a while, so you may not be aware that there are two other sites for large wind farms off of Aquinnah proposed by the state, in addition to Cape Wind. No one was talking about this years ago because it was only proposed last fall. You also may not realize that none of the power from Cape Wind, or any other proposed project, will come to Martha’s Vineyard, so even if these projects all go up, the Vineyard will still be getting its electricity from the same polluting sources as it does today.
You mention the people of the Gulf of Mexico so I assume you think that electricity comes from oil. In fact, only 3% of the electricity that we use comes from oil. Thus wind farms do nothing to educe the use of oil. If we want to reduce our dependence on oil, we need to drive fuel efficient cars, bike, take public transportation or consider carpooling. We need to retrofit our homes to use less home heating oil. We need to buy locally. Before you point the finger slyly at others and say that they ignoring the plight of people in the Gulf, look in the mirror. Are you doing those any of those things above?
Let us move past this childishness of calling those who have questions or raise concerns as NIMBYs. It is a tired approach to a complex conversation. If you’d like to join a community of people who are following this issue and moving the conversation forward, join POINT at http://pointmass.org .
It’s interesting that “Wiegad” from Redding CA quotes at length from Poland’s Wind Energy web site. Unfortunately this is cherry picking at its worst.
I went to this website. On their Home Page, under the tabs Facts and Benefits this is what they say:
“Five important facts concerning wind energy:
1. Wind turbines do not kill birds,
2. Wind turbines do not emit excessive noise and electromagnetic field,
3. Wind turbines do not disfigure landscape,
4. Wind turbines generate cheap and reliable energy,
5. Wind turbines are low subsidized.”
Contrary to what Wiegad would have you believe, pwea is an informed organization dedicated to best practices of new technology. They do NOT claim that wind turbines slaughter birds. If we’re going to discuss the pros and cons of Cape Wind then let’s at least be honest about our “facts”.
SF
Wind Watcher is right. Most of our electricity comes from clean coal LOL. Using energy wisely is great but if we continue to use dirty technology like coal, oil or nuclear it doesn’t address the issues of a growing population and a greater demand on the grid.I don’t believe for a minute that using our energy more wisely will save the world .I’ve done as much as I can personally to save energy in my home, at work , and my vehicle. The gluttonous neighbor nullifies any of that. And by the way I’d be willing to bet that your domesticated cat kills more birds in one week than one turbine. Offshore is the place to do this as our land mass isn’t like the midwest where there is wide open spaces.
Those turbines are going to cause vibrations in the water. This is a fact. As an engineer, there is no way to completely eliminate vibration noise..however slight. Show us the studies done on the effect that this will have on the fisheries before installing these. The waters off the Island and the quantity of turbines proposed should not be allowed. Haven’t we learned our lessons from the Gulf oil spill. Keep our waters safe and clean for our grandchildren…the government has not done the best job at doing this and I see them failing again with the installtion of wind turbines in the ocean.
Why haven’t the engineers considered other less intrusive ocean alternatives…tidal generators.
There is political agenda behind this proposal as seen by the push to install these turbines.
I also got a chuckle by the comment about the Hamptons. So true. Money=Power
In response to the post detailing the extent of bird kills by the Canadian wind farm-
Let’s do the math, shall we?
An 82 turbine array killed 600 birds over a six month period. That works out to 3.28 birds killed a day by 82 of these ‘beasts’ or .04 birds killed by each turbine a week. So you are saying that each of these monsters are killing a single bird on the average of one every three weeks.
FYI- my three cats are doing more to wipe out the avian population than those turbines. They each average about one or two birds a month (not counting the ones they don’t bring inside for purposes of showing off). If I had 82 cats it would be roughly three times as deadly as the wind farm….
To “Real Yankee” and “Island Observer” – your claims about house cats and plate glass killing birds are a tired refrain in this debate that has been propogated by wind energy lobbyists for years. But let me ask you this – if, upon being shown images of oil covered birds in the Gulf of Mexico, BP had responded “well, that’s really too bad, but house cats and plate glass kill more birds per year than our oil spill” would you find that an acceptable response?
And “Real Yankee” – I ask you this – are you pro electric cars? It seems to me that the same people who decry the use of coal are the first people to promote the use of electric cars. Where does the electricity for these electric cars come from? Coal, nuclear, natural gas. It seems very hypocritical to me.
As much as I support both traditional trades such as fishing and traditional cultures of various kinds here on the island we need to re-think how we power our communities. Buying more power from HydroQuebec is not the answer. Quebec, with tons of water sources and not many people is a good source of hydro power but almost of that power is lost in bringing it down to the states. Producing it locally makes much more economic and technological sense. I was very proud of the Athearn family for putting up their wind turbine and I hope to see more. Pushing power generation off to places we don’t have to see it or have to deal with the environmental consequences will no longer work if we hope to reduce our carbon footprint and continue sustainable, balanced growth.
Chris, your comments are well taken. However, did you know that none of the power from any of the proposed offshore wind projects (including Vineyard Power) will actually come to Martha’s Vineyard? So while there will be the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world off island shores, the Vineyard will get exactly zero power from these installations and will continue to get its power from the same sources it gets it from today.
The state has determined the shores off of MV to be the ONLY places in the state the offshore wind can be sited. The state’s Ocean Management plan specifically states that they chose the area off the Aquinnah Cliffs to be the only places these projects can be because not many people live there. As a side note, I would venture to say that the town of Aquinnah uses the least amount of power of any town in the entire state. So basically, what the state is saying through this amounts to “we want the power, but we want only want it if we can put it in YOUR backyard because we (the State) don’t want to see it.” In my opinion, that is the ultimate hypocritical NIMBY position there is.
The question might be moot. My understanding is that the FERC is going to hear arguments regarding Transcanada’s suit questioning the legality of limiting purchases to MA projects only may provide the final blow. If MA utilities are permitted to purchase the lowest cost renewable resources, Cape Wind will be at the bottom of the list. The opportunities in NY, ME and other locations, will provide significantly cheaper alternatives
In fact, recently NSTAR has intelligently purchased 80 MWs of output from land based wind turbines – they recognize the extreme cost of Cape Wind – a project that they would probably like to avoid.
Solutions to energy problems is important – wasting money should be avoided.
O come on!!!!
The “Moderator” saying “We will have the largest concentration of turbines anywhere in the world.”
What! Bigger than this?
The San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm. The pass where this windfarm is situated is one of the windiest places in Southern California, and it is one of three major wind farms in California, along with the Altamont Pass Wind Farm and the Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm. As of january 2008 the farm consists of 3218 units delivering 615 MW.
China has installations far larger. I think Texas does, too.
The moderator is not moderating. He is delivering a one-sided opinion.
This event was not a “forum”. It was a biased, PR/propaganda event.
The problem with “outsourcing” your power generation to others (including Quebec Hydro) is twofold: (1) the engineering issue (a certain amount of electrons are lost for every mile of transmission, so it’s inefficient), and (2) the moral reason – why should other people have THEIR rivers dammed, THEIR mountains mined, THEIR air polluted – so that your view is untouched? If that’s your position, it’s morally indefensible and you should not be provided with electric service.
You’re not looking for “balance” you just want a plush lifestyle on the backs of energy producing states and neighboring countries. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!