'Environmentalists' Who Oppose Cape Wind Farm Apparently Linked to Fossil Fuel Industry

We know there's no depth they won't sink to.
Yes, it was a mistake and the more people that know how they work the better.

These people, and any like them, will be held accountable for their actions.

Walk the Line!

Kudos to the Globe's Stephanie Ebbert for digging this up. This kind of enterprise journalism is getting harder and harder to do, especially at a place like the Globe, which has seen an exodus of its most experienced scribblers in recent times.

This is SO not cool! We have a long row to hoe getting environmental awareness up if the "sources" are sometimes so slimy! This really endangers the credibility of the message! ARG!

To be fair, I visited their site to see what they were saying.

Their so called FAQ area was FILLED with nothing but massive inaccuracies, politically cherry picked data and gross misrepresentations of how we here in the real world work.

Some examples:

1) Oil dependence, power generation and air pollution: They state that some people believe this is for a measure of reducing our dependence on oil for electricity (it's not). They then go on to "prove" that oil is used for 3% of our electric generation. After that, they make a comparison to power usage from coal factories and gas saying how much better oil and gas is for power. The kicker is when they say "power plants will have to turn rapidly on when wind generation isn't enough to power our electricity draw". On what planet are coal factories turned on and off like a light switch?

2) Cheaper: They claim in relation to prices OIL IS CHEAPER. Yes, they actually state this without a smiley face or a tongue. Not only are they comparing COMPLETELY different size models (micro scale wind generation to gas/oil) but they are also only comparing the FIRST YEAR. As in, the only year the wind generation is going to cost you any money whatsoever aside from extremely minor maintenance.

3) The View: Err what? It's "destroying" your view? Of what? You have a few turbines in one specific direction, which are HELPING YOU. I think a lot of people's houses are ugly but I don't tell them not to build them or tear them down (although I wish I could).

4) Fishing: The fact that "many habormen gather their fish from this key location" is BS. The turbines are placed 1/3 to 1/2 a mile apart so unless you're in some behemoth vessel destroying our environment in the first place and preventing small time fisherman in the other, you're not going to have a problem. Add to that, it's been PROVEN (and you can do this at home kids) that adding objects to the water, as long as it's not overcrowding their water, promotes more fish "dens" and habitats.

I could go on, but it's not even worth it. These people are clearly not out for the public good and should be taken down as the shill company they are.

I for one, can't wait to have these things in view somewhere. It is a sign of progress... kind of like the first lighthouses were years ago.

The other side of the fish habitat idea is, a decent amount of sea bed will be disturbed, by laying the foundation and by large vessels anchoring to do the work (probably comparable to commercial fishing draggers).
I am sure there will be restricted zones around these to protect them (from sabotage) and to protect anchoring small boats (ZAP on the electric cable).

I hope the people who want to install these win out over the naysayers and nimby types. Or I hope a compromise can be reached that will make everyone happy.

vsk

How do you accidentally list an oil company as a funder? That is one hell of a typo!

All credibility is lost forever.

I hope.

Here's something a little "fishy".

Saveoursound has two links on every page with their two "affiliates". Now if you don't know anything about affliliations, they are commonly a way to get around monopoly rules, regulations or appear unrelated for public relations reasons (i.e. we want to look like we have friends).

Waterkeep Alliance has literally nothing on their site about Saveoursound EXCEPT one google search revealed a hidden sublink to Nantucketsoundkeeper. Nantucketsoundkeeper in turn has no links again...except one in a PDF file (which I downloaded for preservation) from 2006 linking then as the main holders of Saveoursound and a one sentence blurb on their contact page (unlike Waterkeeper, this link is not hidden).

Searching further, it is found that William I. Koch, the billionaire mogel in charge of Oxbow, actually initially supported the move, and in fact used to make a lot of money off eco-friendly energy. Know how? He used government rules and regulations and lobbying groups to twist the law to his favor and literally forced energy companies to buy his energy at ridiculously high prices by offering it only in areas where they weren't competitors. He was initially in support of the program but that fell through rather fast ONLY AFTER HE FOUND OUT HE COULD NOT GET MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES. Immediately after he began pumping money into groups like Saveoursound.org and admittedly spends $2-$3 million a year "fighting" the bad fight.

Not only that, he was associated with the Alliance as long ago as 2006!!! I dug up an article:

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2006/09/22/title_166?blog=53

Talk about your classic dirty billionaire who thinks just because he has money he can do anything he wants :(

And that's to say that the corporation of ''Environmentalists' that has proposed Cape Wind isn't linked to the fossil fuel industry either?

While Cape Wind's official website (capewind.org) declares that “our health and environment are negatively impacted by fossil fuel burning,” Energy Management Inc. did not hesitate to also propose a 240 megawatt diesel power plant in Chelsea, Massachusetts in July of 2006. The town of Chelsea currently has the highest hospitalized asthma rates in the state of Massachusetts, and is generally overburdened with the negative impacts of industrialization. The proposed power plant was also set to be constructed within 100 yards of a public elementary school, which would prompt health risks for local children. Scorning EMI's president, Jim Gordon, as an “environmental hypocrite” and an “opportunistic developer,” residents and environmental activists adamantly protested the proposed plant. In November of 2007, EMI withdrew the plant's proposal.
Just weeks later, EMI announced plans to construct a 400 megawatt gas-fired power plant in Westfield, Massachusetts. Although many Westfield residents have protested the plan, city department heads have labeled the proposal “a big plus and a huge addition to our industrial base." The Westfield plant is expected to be operational by 2012.

When confronted with the hypocrisy of EMI's projected public image, EMI's Vice President Dennis Duffy responded, “We're in the energy business. That's what we do."

Clearly, the issue on both sides is that of economic self-interest, rather than environmental concern.

Scumbags and liars all.

I believe the term is duplicitous corporate scumbag.

Have to laugh. Jim Gordon, President of Cape Wind is a fossil fuel guy himself. Along with Cape Wind he has also proposed two new fossil fuel burning power plants for Massachusetts, a diesel plant and a gas plant.

I have no problem with some people getting rich, but when they use their money destructively to hurt our future viability as a species and as a living organism ... the disgust is heartfelt.

Environmental studies by the oil industry are a lot like medical studies by the tobacco industry.

this stuff makes me so sick. it makes you feel like you cant trust any business. which maybe you cant.

I propose they have trials, similar to war crime trials during WWII, for all these dirty bastards that line there pockets from the misery caused by all the pollution and economic hardship they continue to support

Cape Wind, if it is built, will be like all wind generation; intermittent. Wind generation needs to be backed up with on-demand power.

Building a gas turbine plant is a reasonable backup. They are inexpensive to build but expensive to operate. This will permit Cape Wind to guarantee power delivery.

Environmentalists industry shills? Nothing new there. Whether they are paid by the industry or not seems at best a technicality. From Greenpeace to Cape wind these movements have a long history of effectively shilling for the fossil fuel industry. Greenpeace is staunchly anti-nuclear, so instead of being like France and getting cheap nuclear power, we're stuck with thousands of coal burning power plants. Just the latest in a long legacy.

@ Bill Young ~ There is a better idea for those who notice wind generation is intermittent. Justifying the gas power plant with a shill is part of being an duplicitous corporate scumbag. You may have bought into the big-oil misinformation propaganda, but we all haven't left our brains in 'fear monger' setting.

One better idea than "more fossil fuel generation capacity"

step 1 ~ build LOTS of wind generating capacity. Some will be making power because the wind never stops everywhere at the same time.

step 2 ~ Convert all the existing coal and gas fired generating plants to use hydrogen. Make hydrogen on location when there is excess wind power, and burn it in times of "peak power" or when wind fails to supply the necessary electricity.

Others may come up with even better ideas, but continuing with the "more fossil fuel generation capacity" mantra deserves to be ridiculed and rejected.
We need to change for a better tomorrow.

Check out Masdar City, or the Masdar Initiative, if im not mistaken its funded by a major oil tacoon. They may just be trying to keep their money when we all switch off oil and such and onto alternatives. but im not a scholar so i don't know.

Talk to the kennedey's

I am curious as to what the correction means - the listing of Oxbow as a contributor suggests they did somehow contribute or were involved some way; does the statement that "There has been no financial contribution from Oxbow for BKSH lobbying efforts," rule out other, non-financial contributions/ Such as material support, in-kind contributions, etc? Why would Oxbow be listed "by mistake" if there were no involvement at all?