A Seashore Fight to Harness the Wind

An article in today's New York Times looks at the offshore Cape Wind project proposed off Cape Cod in Massachusetts (see previous post).

And several environmental organizations have found themselves in the unaccustomed position of praising the Corps of Engineers, which many have criticized in the past as being too quick to approve development projects.

"At first, obviously, it was pretty frightening because of their history," said Kert Davies, United States research director for Greenpeace, which favors the project. But he added, "I think the effort was very solid, and they were under a lot of scrutiny."

Apparently Mr. Davies is serious. The Corps of Engineers has eagerly approved this development, consistent with its Greenpeace-criticized record. But now Greenpeace also supports this 24-square-mile industrial complex, so the Corps has done a "solid" job.

And in another example of the decline of journalism, the Times echos the idea that this in an "environmental" project:

The 4,000-page draft gives new support to environmental groups that praise the project as a safe, nonpolluting and desperately needed alternative to fossil fuel power plants. But opponents challenge the report, the process that produced it and the idea of building the turbine array in the first place.

There is no mention that many environmental groups (see SafeWind and Save Our Sound for some of them) and environmentalist individuals oppose the project. A vegetarian isn't vegetarian if he or she eats chicken occasionally. And an environmentalist should no longer be called such when he or she supports the work of developers.

[See the next post for how ridiculous the claim is that such projects will reduce fossil fuel burning.]

Don't fence me in!

Today's New York Times includes a photo from the Army Corps of Engineers' "Environmental Impact Statement" (which uses data provided primarily by the developer) showing what the proposed Cape Wind project (130 420-ft towers) between Cape Cod and Nantucket will look like: a barbed-wire fence. So much for the open sea, the expansiveness that draws us to it.

See Wind Stop for similar pictures from other locations. Wind Stop also emphasizes the 10-story oil-filled transformer that will be part of the complex.

Wise words

Via Information Clearing House . . .

A Cherokee elder was teaching his grandchildren. He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me. It is a terrible fight, and it is between two wolves. One wolf is full of fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity, resentment, and lies. The other wolf is full of joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, generosity, and compassion. This fight is going on inside me and inside each of you and in every other person, too."

They thought about it for a moment, and one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee replied, "The one I feed."

Animal rights protests barred

A giant new building for conducting experiments on animals at Oxford University has been on hold since the contractor withdrew because of protests. But should a new contractor be found, the building is already protected by an injunction against protesters coming within 50 yards of it.

The judge, a Mr. Grigson, said the injunction did not prevent anyone from expressing his views: "What it does restrict is to whom and where he expresses those views." That is, you are free to express your views as long as they don't bother anyone.

The attorney for the university, Tim Lawson-Cruttenden, said the injunction was a win for liberal democracy: "I'm pleased that we're beginning to maintain the right not to be unlawfully harassed in a liberal democracy." That is, if we find protests troubling we can declare them to be illegal, and the liberal principles that depend so much on animal research may continue without the harassment of opposed opinion.

The vice-chancellor of Oxford, John Hood, admitted that the vast majority of protesters had acted within the law: "By obtaining this injunction the University of Oxford is not seeking to stifle the views of those groups and individuals with whom we disagree." Only, as Mr. Justice Grigson made clear, to restrict it, whether it was legal before or not.

The "liberal" principle at work here is that researchers should be able to look out their windows and not be reminded that their work is cruel and meaningless, that people who would harass those noble academics by expressing opposition must be labelled as terrorists or the whole house of cards risks collapse.

Cape Wind and the bats

The Army Corps of Engineers has released its 4,000-page report on the impacts of the 24-square-mile 130-tower Cape Wind facility proposed for Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod. Unsurprisingly, they think it'll be fine. For example, although migrating red bats traverse Nantucket Sound, they have determined that there is only "limited collision risk for migratory bats." Meanwhile, study continues at the 44-tower Backbone Mountain facility in West Virginia because a preliminary study last year found that over 400 bats were killed in a mere 2 months. FPL Energy's own in-house environmentalist says that the number was probably more like 2,000 since searches for carcasses were done only weekly, giving scavengers plenty of time to find them first.

He is also curious about what attracts bats to wind turbines, which many people have noticed. Is it the insects attracted by the lights, subaural vibrations, curiosity, or something else? Bat Conservation International has reported bats being killed by turbines where bats were never known to fly before.

If this one issue is an example, it is obvious that the Cape Wind report is deeply flawed if not downright disingenuous.

Exit polls underscore Democratic loss

In 2000, exit polls showed that 11% of Democrats voted for Bush and 8% of Republicans voted for Gore. Considering the error that must be allowed for by the sampling, the figures nonetheless suggest that as the Democrats move right they lose more votes than they gain. If the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) -- who have dominated the party since Bill Clinton's election -- wants to establish themselves as the moderate wing of the Republican party, the only way they'll succeed is by joining the Republican party itself, not by destroying their own party. There are a lot of Republicans already who support abortion rights, so when a pro-business voter is presented by the "New" Democrats with what is essentially the Republican platform, they will of course take a look at the real thing instead. And when a one-time union worker whose pension has been looted sees no major candidate seriously addressing his concerns, at least the Republicans -- having obviously studied how fascists succeed -- know how to redirect his resentment.

The exit polls this time still show that 11% of Democrats voted for Bush. And only 6% of Republicans -- fewer than voted for Gore -- voted for Kerry.

And may I ask how the "progressive" supporters of John Kerry, such as Move On, Michael Moore, the big unions, et al., think they will push the Democrats left again? They attached no conditions to their support, didn't insist that Kerry take a single progressive stand during the campaign. Imagine them telling the DLC to let some light in now. Ha! the Dems will think. You support us no matter what we do, you spineless grovelers, stop smelling up our tastefully appointed offices and get back to "getting out the vote."

The great are great only because we are on our knees. -- Max Stirner

Democrats! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Bob Herbert ("Voting Without the Facts, New York Times, Nov. 8) points out that what is currently being called "values" in reference to some of the Bush vote should more accurately be called "ignorance."

"You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?"

And Alexander Cockburn ("Don't Say We Didn't Warn You," Counterpunch, Nov. 6/7) has some words about Kerry's supporters who spent $20 million to stop Nader (instead of, say, helping some of the Senate races they lost) and never held Kerry to even the mildest progressive principle (letting him, for example, boast of his principled opposition to the Vietnam quagmire 30 years ago even as today he supports the Iraq quagmire).

What the Democrats ought to learn from this debacle is that trying to not be Democrats doesn't work. Only a charming liar like Bill Clinton can pull it off. As Bob Herbert and Eileen McNamara (see yesterday's post) point out, the Democrats need to be Democrats again, advocating the ideals of social progress: economic equality and justice, labor, guaranteed health care (as it is in almost every other country in the world, rich or poor), protecting citizens against corporate might, protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority, etc. In short, they need to adopt Ralph Nader's platform.

But they won't. Democrats have been running from their core beliefs for years. That's why they hate Nader. He represents what they once might have been -- a party of principle. They will continue their painful slide into obscurity by urging a further move towards accommodating the ignorance and hatred that are hailed these days as values and faith. They will further narrow their "liberalism" to yet fewer and ever more meaningless culture-war icons and effectively let the robber barons run us all into oblivion. Our esteemed Democratic reresentatives, after all, retire to comfy jobs in board rooms just as Republicans do.