We are all also reading about this massive oil spill in the Gulf. Most recent analysis suggests that this spill now exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill. All the while the spill continues to flow.
The opposition to Cape Wind comes from many angles. One is the potential impact of these platforms on sea life.
Dead turtles and other sea life have started to wash up along the Gulf Coast from the current oil spill. Reports are that if the slick is caught up into the Gulf Stream Current the spill will move out of the Gulf and into the Atlantic.
Cape Wind is reported to "occupy" 25 square miles. Of this, about 54 acres will be truly physically occupied.
The 1975 "Florida" oil spill in Buzzards Bay impacted 5,000 acres of ocean bottom and 500 acres of marsh. These areas illustrated "95% of the animals collected were dead." The more recent "Bouchard 120" spill impacted 90 miles of shore line.
So, why are these planning issues? The reasons are clearly many. First, economically, as many have stated, we need economic independence. Yes, more oil development can provide that, but at what cost? Is it appropriate for other entire industries to be injured when a large or small spill occurs? How will the fishing industry cope in the Gulf? How about the vacation industry when pristine white beaches are spoiled by oil?
Wind may not be as economical (in direct costs) as oil. But environmentally, it appears more sound. When oil starts to pay for society's costs (air pollution, water pollution, health issues due to smog) the two energy sources start to balance out.
Cape Wind, on-shore wind farms, solar farms, geo-thermal all need to be part of our future.
Of course, to ensure clean energy meets "clean" standards, we also need to ensure that these facilities are manufactured within the US as our environmental control standards for manufacturing exceeds those found anywhere else.
No comments:
Post a Comment