Full Version: Cape Wind Project
QUOTE
Cape Wind Project
The Cape Wind, wind Farm was proposed in 2001 and has been fought tooth and nail by Liberal Senator Ted Kennedy.
“What’s interesting about Cape Wind is that it’s become such a controversial project. You’d think that something that provides clean and renewable energy to an area of the country that desperately needs more electrical generating capacity would be anything but controversial, yet this is not the case. The controversy stems from the location for the wind farm in Nantucket Sound, which is about 5 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. For the past 6 years, this project has been held up by people who have gone to great measures to make sure it does not get built. What makes it more interesting is the reason they don’t want it to be built. Quite simply, they don’t want to have to look at it. In other words, it offends their sense of aesthetics. Stating this objection publicly would not help their cause so they are using flimsy but less embarrassing excuses such as their concern for wildlife, fisherman, pilots, and a whole host of reasons that are diversions from the real reason, that is, people feel that views from their mansions are off limits for any other societal benefit besides their own viewing pleasure. Nantucket Sound is best viewed from private beaches attached to multi-million dollar estates.
The power from the wind farm could provide up to 75% of the electrical energy needs for Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Cape Cod. The power for this region is currently generated by a dirty oil-fired plant that has been responsible for several oil spills further down the Cape Cod coast.”
http://www.k0lee.com/blog/2007/10/cape-wind.html
The Cape Wind, wind Farm was proposed in 2001 and has been fought tooth and nail by Liberal Senator Ted Kennedy.
“What’s interesting about Cape Wind is that it’s become such a controversial project. You’d think that something that provides clean and renewable energy to an area of the country that desperately needs more electrical generating capacity would be anything but controversial, yet this is not the case. The controversy stems from the location for the wind farm in Nantucket Sound, which is about 5 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. For the past 6 years, this project has been held up by people who have gone to great measures to make sure it does not get built. What makes it more interesting is the reason they don’t want it to be built. Quite simply, they don’t want to have to look at it. In other words, it offends their sense of aesthetics. Stating this objection publicly would not help their cause so they are using flimsy but less embarrassing excuses such as their concern for wildlife, fisherman, pilots, and a whole host of reasons that are diversions from the real reason, that is, people feel that views from their mansions are off limits for any other societal benefit besides their own viewing pleasure. Nantucket Sound is best viewed from private beaches attached to multi-million dollar estates.
The power from the wind farm could provide up to 75% of the electrical energy needs for Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Cape Cod. The power for this region is currently generated by a dirty oil-fired plant that has been responsible for several oil spills further down the Cape Cod coast.”
http://www.k0lee.com/blog/2007/10/cape-wind.html
Questions for the debate:
1. Can we trust Democrat promises to fund a “green revolution” in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
2. Will this be the fate of any project of its type? Will NIMBY people in power like Ted Kennedy defeat them regardless of merit?
3. How can this be avoided so that we can quickly get green energy projects approved and will liberal Democrats like Obama and Kennedy ever “go along”? they have promised 10s of billions in renewable energy projects – but will they suffer the same delays as the Cape Wind Project?
Questions for the debate:
1. Can we trust Democrat promises to fund a “green revolution” in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
I might point out that the linked article also names Mitt Romney as one of those fighting this project. It's not a Democratic/liberal thing, but a money and power thing.
To answer the question, you can't trust any political promises, obviously. The best you can do is to try to support those people who at least give lip service to green power instead of those who openly oppose it.
2. Will this be the fate of any project of its type? Will NIMBY people in power like Ted Kennedy defeat them regardless of merit?
Often, yes. The most powerful green of all is money. That's why the best solution is to try to make environmentalism profitable.
3. How can this be avoided so that we can quickly get green energy projects approved and will liberal Democrats like Obama and Kennedy ever “go along”?
Vote for the Green Party, maybe?
Let both of the big parties know that this is a vital and important issue, and that they will lose votes -- lose money -- if they don't do something about it.
they have promised 10s of billions in renewable energy projects – but will they suffer the same delays as the Cape Wind Project?
Sometimes. One can only hope that, once in a while, the right thing happens.
QUOTE
Sometimes. One can only hope that, once in a while, the right thing happens.
Sorry “Hope” is not enough for me. And you are right – sometimes its just “money” that makes the difference. In this case no doubt Romney must have had wealthy friends on the Cape who he wanted to “support”.
I point out Teddy K because he is more than a governor – he is a hypocrite in a powerful position in the Senate and a man who has made a point of pushing “green” causes. To do what he has done here in MA sends a clear signal that all such projects can and will be dealt with “politically” rather than just on their merits. That NIMBY groups with political connection will kill or delay indefinitely any project that they choose.
Thus I have ZERO confidence that we will get one inch closer to independence from foreign oil – thus the importance of staying in the ME to protect the supply of oil and protect countries that could care less about us and are sucking us dry.
Depressing.
Jon Stewart skewered Ted Kennedy on this a few months back. You can watch the video here. Basically Kennedy doesn't want the farm for aesthetic reasons. It'd ruin his view of the horizon.
Can we trust Democrat[ic] promises to fund a "green revolution" in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
Nope. We can only trust liberal activists will apply enough pressure to make the Democrat Party deliver on its promises if it's still worth appealing to the party.
Can we trust Democrat[ic] promises to fund a "green revolution" in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
Nope. We can only trust liberal activists will apply enough pressure to make the Democrat Party deliver on its promises if it's still worth appealing to the party.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 03:23 PM) 
Jon Stewart skewered Ted Kennedy on this a few months back. You can watch the video here. Basically Kennedy doesn't want the farm for aesthetic reasons. It'd ruin his view of the horizon.
Can we trust Democrat[ic] promises to fund a "green revolution" in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
Nope. We can only trust liberal activists will apply enough pressure to make the Democrat Party deliver on its promises if it's still worth appealing to the party.
Can we trust Democrat[ic] promises to fund a "green revolution" in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
Nope. We can only trust liberal activists will apply enough pressure to make the Democrat Party deliver on its promises if it's still worth appealing to the party.
We saw how well that worked with the war and the deficit spending promises from the 2006 mid-term election. Still in Iraq, still borrowing money.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Mar 20 2008, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 04:23 PM)
We can only trust liberal activists will apply enough pressure to make the Democrat Party deliver on its promises if it's still worth appealing to the party.
We saw how well that worked with the war and the deficit spending promises from the 2006 mid-term election. Still in Iraq, still borrowing money.
I thought the Democratic fiscal platform for 2006 midterm elections was to balance the budget instead of reducing deficit spending?
Anyway, I can make a similar comment about the Republican Party and its treatment toward conservative activists, but I'm not sure what the GOP really stands for since the heady heydays of William F. Buckley idolizing Francisco Franco, the party failing the acid test of McCarthysm, the infusion of fundamentalist Christianity and ultimately the legitimization of movement conservatism.
I'm sure the current disenfranchised state within the Democratic Party bothers you as much as the disarray within the GOP bothers me, Scubatim. After all you know liberal activists engaged in renewable energy projects by the GOP's calling card: the fringe left.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 07:37 PM)
I thought the Democratic fiscal platform for 2006 midterm elections was to balance the budget instead of reducing deficit spending?
Help me understand something. How do you balance the budget and still spend money that is borrowed? (that is what I understand deficit spending to be) At least that is what M.W. says it means. deficit spending So by what you are saying, a balanced budget includes deficit spending?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Mar 20 2008, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 07:37 PM)
I thought the Democratic fiscal platform for 2006 midterm elections was to balance the budget instead of reducing deficit spending?
Help me understand something. How do you balance the budget and still spend money that is borrowed?
By not spending more than you tax.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Mar 20 2008, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 07:37 PM)
I thought the Democratic fiscal platform for 2006 midterm elections was to balance the budget instead of reducing deficit spending?
Help me understand something. How do you balance the budget and still spend money that is borrowed?
By not spending more than you tax.
So they promised no defict spending then?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Mar 20 2008, 09:18 PM)
So they promised no defict spending then?
I don't recall this. I browsed the DNC's website and found statements on balancing the budget, but not deficit spending.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Mar 20 2008, 09:18 PM)
So they promised no defict spending then?
I don't recall this. I browsed the DNC's website and found statements on balancing the budget, but not deficit spending.
Ok, I asked how to have a balanced budget as well as deficit spending. You said by not spending more than you tax. This would logically imply that to have a balanced budget, you would have to get rid of deficit spending. Correct me if I am wrong.
We have had deficit spending for too long, and I have not seen any changes over the past couple of years. I also haven't seen a balanced budget, but maybe I missed it last year. I don't understand how one can get a balanced budget, but still have deficit spending. If we want a balanced budget, is it possible to have deficit spending at the same time? I am not just asking Lesly, I am asking anyone that has more knowledge in this area as well.
Scub, you're right that you need to start without zero debt to balance the budget by not spending more than you tax. At this point we'd have to tax more than we're spending, spend less than we're taxing or a combination of the two to balance the budget.
Define how long we've had deficit spending? Wasn't the budget balanced before Clinton's second term was up?
Maybe your questions are better served in a new thread. We've taken this off topic.
Define how long we've had deficit spending? Wasn't the budget balanced before Clinton's second term was up?
Maybe your questions are better served in a new thread. We've taken this off topic.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 08:36 PM)
Scub, you're right that you need to start without zero debt to balance the budget by not spending more than you tax. At this point we'd have to tax more than we're spending, spend less than we're taxing or a combination of the two to balance the budget.
Define how long we've had deficit spending? Wasn't the budget balanced before Clinton's second term was up?
Maybe your questions are better served in a new thread. We've taken this off topic.
Define how long we've had deficit spending? Wasn't the budget balanced before Clinton's second term was up?
Maybe your questions are better served in a new thread. We've taken this off topic.
I don't think we need to start with zero debt, only that the budget didn't increase the debt. To do so, we need to stop deficit spending. Only then can you call it a balanced budget. But you are right, this is slightly off topic.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 09:36 PM)
Scub, you're right that you need to start without zero debt to balance the budget by not spending more than you tax. At this point we'd have to tax more than we're spending, spend less than we're taxing or a combination of the two to balance the budget.
Define how long we've had deficit spending? Wasn't the budget balanced before Clinton's second term was up?
Maybe your questions are better served in a new thread. We've taken this off topic.
Define how long we've had deficit spending? Wasn't the budget balanced before Clinton's second term was up?
Maybe your questions are better served in a new thread. We've taken this off topic.
Yes we did but don’t thank Bill – thank those new “idealistic” Republicans who too over.– who nearly shut the government down to do it. We were heading down the road toward a huge surplus and reduction of the debt and then Bull’s chickens came home to roost – 9/11. Followed by Bush and Iraq – Oh well – we were on the right track.
If you think a Dem controlled Congress can do this I think you are dreaming. The idea is spend it as fast as possible and then slip in the new TAXES. And yes i know Bush wasted tons of money - granted.
Sigh.
That was Clinton calling Gingrinch's bluff. He threatened to shut down the government,
President Bill Clinton yesterday raised the stakes further in the great budget war with Congress by vetoing a bill that would have raised the US Treasury's debt ceiling, and vowing the same fate for another—a rejection that would virtually ensure a partial government shutdown today.
and then actually allowed the shut down to occur by refusing to hedge to Republican specifics for balancing the budget. I remember it well. I was overseas when I heard Limbaugh foaming on the Forced Entertainment Network and L'dMAO.
That's acid for you.
Grats on further taking your own thread off topic Ted.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 20 2008, 10:00 PM)
Yes we did but don't thank Bill—thank those new "idealistic" Republicans who too over—who nearly shut the government down to do it.
That was Clinton calling Gingrinch's bluff. He threatened to shut down the government,
President Bill Clinton yesterday raised the stakes further in the great budget war with Congress by vetoing a bill that would have raised the US Treasury's debt ceiling, and vowing the same fate for another—a rejection that would virtually ensure a partial government shutdown today.
and then actually allowed the shut down to occur by refusing to hedge to Republican specifics for balancing the budget. I remember it well. I was overseas when I heard Limbaugh foaming on the Forced Entertainment Network and L'dMAO.
That's acid for you.
Grats on further taking your own thread off topic Ted.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 20 2008, 10:12 PM)
Sigh.
That was Clinton calling Gingrinch's bluff. He threatened to shut down the government,
President Bill Clinton yesterday raised the stakes further in the great budget war with Congress by vetoing a bill that would have raised the US Treasury's debt ceiling, and vowing the same fate for another—a rejection that would virtually ensure a partial government shutdown today.
and then actually allowed the shut down to occur by refusing to hedge to Republican specifics for balancing the budget. I remember it well. I was overseas when I heard Limbaugh foaming on the Forced Entertainment Network and L'dMAO.
That's acid for you.
Grats on further taking your own thread off topic Ted.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 20 2008, 10:00 PM)
Yes we did but don't thank Bill—thank those new "idealistic" Republicans who too over—who nearly shut the government down to do it.
That was Clinton calling Gingrinch's bluff. He threatened to shut down the government,
President Bill Clinton yesterday raised the stakes further in the great budget war with Congress by vetoing a bill that would have raised the US Treasury's debt ceiling, and vowing the same fate for another—a rejection that would virtually ensure a partial government shutdown today.
and then actually allowed the shut down to occur by refusing to hedge to Republican specifics for balancing the budget. I remember it well. I was overseas when I heard Limbaugh foaming on the Forced Entertainment Network and L'dMAO.
That's acid for you.
Grats on further taking your own thread off topic Ted.
Couldn’t resist that one lesly.
Now back to the topic!
That's right back to the topic - let's avoid one-liners, please.
DEBATE:
1. Can we trust Democrat promises to fund a “green revolution” in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
2. Will this be the fate of any project of its type? Will NIMBY people in power like Ted Kennedy defeat them regardless of merit?
3. How can this be avoided so that we can quickly get green energy projects approved and will liberal Democrats like Obama and Kennedy ever “go along”? they have promised 10s of billions in renewable energy projects – but will they suffer the same delays as the Cape Wind Project?
DEBATE:
1. Can we trust Democrat promises to fund a “green revolution” in the US when a simple wind farm has been held up for dubious reasons for 7 years. Why or Why not?
2. Will this be the fate of any project of its type? Will NIMBY people in power like Ted Kennedy defeat them regardless of merit?
3. How can this be avoided so that we can quickly get green energy projects approved and will liberal Democrats like Obama and Kennedy ever “go along”? they have promised 10s of billions in renewable energy projects – but will they suffer the same delays as the Cape Wind Project?
The latest on the project. Looks like Teddy and his buddies will win – and the rest of us lose.
“BOSTON (AP) - Backers of a proposal to build 130 windmills across 25 miles of federal waters in Nantucket Sound will get what may be their best, last chance to make their case to federal regulators at a series of four public hearings this week.
The project, which has been working its way through the state and federal regulatory process since November, 2001, has also split the state's top political leaders.
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose family's Hyannis Port compound would have a clear view of the farm, is among critics of the plan who say the windmills would mar a pristine seascape.
The backers of the project were buoyed by the release of Minerals Management Service's 2,000 page draft environmental impact report in January. The report said Cape Wind would have mostly 'minor' or 'negligible' effects on wildlife, ocean navigation, fishing and tourism.
'At this point it's safe to say that Cape Wind has undergone more public comment than any energy project in the history of Massachusetts,' Cape Wind Associates spokesman Mark Rodgers said.
Total construction could take about two years, with the turbines up and running by 2011.
Even if Cape Wind wins a final approval from the Minerals Management Service -- a decision could come later this year -- they still face potential lawsuits.
”
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/20...afx4752692.html
So here we have the reality of this comedy – you can fight for 10 years or more and lose at the end and/or just run out of money to keep going. Unless the Federal government stops this crap there is zero chance we will get any significant percentage of our energy from wind – or ant other method that crosses the interests powerful. The fact that this one has been held up primarily through the efforts of a US Senator who claims to be “green” tells us just how jaded this whole affair is – and how unlikely we are to see any real change
“BOSTON (AP) - Backers of a proposal to build 130 windmills across 25 miles of federal waters in Nantucket Sound will get what may be their best, last chance to make their case to federal regulators at a series of four public hearings this week.
The project, which has been working its way through the state and federal regulatory process since November, 2001, has also split the state's top political leaders.
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose family's Hyannis Port compound would have a clear view of the farm, is among critics of the plan who say the windmills would mar a pristine seascape.
The backers of the project were buoyed by the release of Minerals Management Service's 2,000 page draft environmental impact report in January. The report said Cape Wind would have mostly 'minor' or 'negligible' effects on wildlife, ocean navigation, fishing and tourism.
'At this point it's safe to say that Cape Wind has undergone more public comment than any energy project in the history of Massachusetts,' Cape Wind Associates spokesman Mark Rodgers said.
Total construction could take about two years, with the turbines up and running by 2011.
Even if Cape Wind wins a final approval from the Minerals Management Service -- a decision could come later this year -- they still face potential lawsuits.
”
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/20...afx4752692.html
So here we have the reality of this comedy – you can fight for 10 years or more and lose at the end and/or just run out of money to keep going. Unless the Federal government stops this crap there is zero chance we will get any significant percentage of our energy from wind – or ant other method that crosses the interests powerful. The fact that this one has been held up primarily through the efforts of a US Senator who claims to be “green” tells us just how jaded this whole affair is – and how unlikely we are to see any real change
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.