Cape Wind -- and the Coast Guard

Here's a copy of the letter I wrote to Senator Stevens of Alaska -- I can't stand the continued opposition to the Cape Wind project -- I mean, it seems like a no-brainer -- we get electricity for nothing! No environmental impact, no birds get harmed (hel-lo, they're not dumb enough to fly in the middle of the stupid turbines), and the rich 3 million dollar home owners will get over it -- I predict that if they ever do it, eventually it'll be like the Dutch -- no one among die Niederlander says "Oh man, those Dutch windmills, such an eyesore to the swamp we live in!" I'm sure it's on every brique-braque that they sell in the airport.

The latest thing here is the Coast Guard thing -- essentially inserting a clause that would let that jerk of an unpopular carpetbagger Romney (Yay! No more Republican rule after the election!) veto the project. He's got a vested interest in it, given that him and all of his rich friends (You have to love that line from his wife -- 'Yeah, we had some tough times after college, Mitt even had to sell some of his stocks!') What a joke...

...

Dear Senator Stevens,

I just wanted to write in opposition to Section 414 of the Coast Guard Conference Report. It is my understanding that this section would allow, in effect, Governor Romney to veto the Cape Wind project. Governor Romney, never a defender of the common man, is opposed to the Cape Wind project. The project’s goals are to deliver 75% of the energy needs of the Cape using extremely low environmental impact wind turbines to generate electricity. The benefit is apparent: electricity with little to no greenhouse gases, little to no effect on the environment, and a future for sustainable energy for a secure, independent America. We often hear on the news how beholden we are to foreign sources of energy – and here we have an opportunity to make our own. The main opposition seems to come from owners of multi-million dollar homes who might see a wind turbine the size of a fingernail in the distance, and find offense that their view might be somewhat obstructed for the betterment of the vast majority of citizens on the Cape.

I understand that your motto is 'Do what's best for Alaska.' While I find that to be a valiant goal, I simply cannot agree that torpedoing a project in Massachusetts, that would help our energy crisis, has any relevance whatsoever to doing what’s best for Alaska. Indeed, helping those opponents of the Cape Wind project is certainly not what’s best for Massachusetts, nor is it what’s best for America. If, therefore, this project is neither doing what’s best for Alaska, nor for Massachusetts, nor for America, then to whose benefit is this?

I have a strong faith in democracy and in the power of reasoned argument to sway that democracy for the better. Certainly this little blurb is not meant to be the ultimate piece of evidence to sway your vote, but I urge you, as you seem to have a vested interest in this, to do more research into what would be best for our Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Surely you have been a victim of misinformation! Otherwise, what sense could there be in opposition to such an environmentally friendly project, a project that truly lives up to President Bush’s repeated calls for an end to dependence on foreign sources of energy? I would like to thank you and your staff for taking the time to read this letter, and again, I support the effort for the Cape Wind project – please become a supporter of it as well.