Cape Wind - The Book

Oil and Ocean Acidification

Read Wendy's column from Sunday's Providence Journal on the effect of oil and other fossil fuels on salt water ecology:

Brian Burroughs’s The Big Rich is the best energy trade book to come along in years. Its Texas-style story-telling is a pleasure to read, and the tale of the takeover of Texas government by its oil men after they discovered a jillion bazillion dollars worth of oil is riveting.

But The Big Rich is less about oil itself than about the oil culture, with oil barons like H.L. Hunt making statements such as “In an ideal society, the more taxes you pay, the more votes you get.”

With statements like that, an Enron-style disaster comes to seem inevitable. The early-20th Century wildcats who struck it Big Rich in the Lone Star State were not shy or retiring. They happily shipped off grocery-sized paper bags full of cash to Washington, and, well, we all know the rest of the story . . . politically speaking, that is.

We’re only now learning about some of the other ramifications. At the end of January in Nice, France, 150 scientists from 26 countries met to discuss the deterioration of the oceans. Red-tide outbreaks are on the rise. Fish stocks worldwide are in decline. And, the scientists pointed out, coral reefs around the world are dying.

The scientists gathered in Nice predicted that the world’s reefs could collapse within the next several decades. “The questions are now how bad it will be and how soon it will happen,” said James Orr, one of the conference’s leaders and the man who spearheaded what has come to be known as the “Monaco Declaration.” (Monaco is right next to Nice.)

The declaration blamed the situation on oil and coal. In particular, the pollutants from burning oil in gasoline-powered engines and from burning coal in power plants causes “ocean acidification.”

The ocean absorbs a third to half of the world’s carbon-dioxide emissions. Only a decade ago, some scientists said the ocean would be a “buffer” that could continue to absorb the world’s CO{-2} output and thus slow the onset of climate change. But then researchers investigating the accelerating decay of coral reefs began reporting that the dying resulted, in part, from the very emissions the ocean absorbs.

CO{-2} reacts with sea water to create an overabundance of hydrogen, which lowers the delicate pH balance. The CO{-2} injected into soda forms carbonic acid, which we find pleasant to drink. But too much of that carbonic acid plays havoc with ocean life.

The long-term results of this acidification process have only begun to be understood. Recently researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported that New England’s bays and estuaries are seeing a decrease in fish spawning because of acidification.

“The chemistry [of the oceans] is so fundamental and the changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable,” Orr said, speaking for the rest of the signers of the Declaration. The scientists called for an immediate decrease in burning fossil fuels. If nothing is done, they warned, one of the most important sources of food will no longer be a well-functioning ecosystem.

H. L. Hunt, who died in 1974, liked fishing, but it seems unlikely that, in the “ideal society” he wished to create, the Monaco Declaration scientists would have been allowed the vote.

Cape Wind -- Who Has the Trump Card?

Note: Senior editor and seasoned business journalist Jim Kinsella will be following the Cape Wind story closely from here on in, as I become more involved in my new book. Jim will soon have his own website, but for the time being he will post on the Cape Wind book blog.
Please: anyone writing about Cape Wind who uses information from this story should cite Kinsella as the reporter who did the leg work.

By JAMES KINSELLA
In a friendly game of poker, a trump card is good to hold.
In the high-stakes game of Cape Wind - pitting a proposed $1 billion-plus offshore wind farm versus the regulatory authority of Cape Cod towns and the Cape Cod Commission - a trump card is really good to hold.
At a hearing Thursday afternoon in Barnstable Superior Court, Judge Robert C. Rufo listened to lawyers from Cape Wind and the attorney general's office square off against lawyers for the Town of Barnstable and the Cape Commission.
At the heart of the matter: who holds the trump card on approval of the Cape Wind project as a development of regional impact - the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, or the Cape Cod Commission?
Judge Rufo took the matter under advisement.
Thursday's hearing was a legal skirmish in a battle that undoubtedly is headed to the Supreme Judicial Court for resolution.
The immediate question is whether the dispute tarries in Barnstable Superior Court, or goes straight to the SJC, the highest court in Massachusetts.
The Town of Barnstable, which previously had filed suit against the project, was joined in its legal opposition by the Cape Cod Commission, which decided against approving the wind farm as a development of regional impact.
The wind farm, proposed by Cape Wind Associates LLC of Boston, would consist of 130 turbines on Horseshoe Shoal about five miles south of Cape Cod. Backers say the 468-megawatt project could meet 75 percent of the electricity demand on the Cape, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
Although the project would be built in federal waters, the power lines would cross inshore waters owned by the Town of Barnstable as well as land on Cape Cod - hence the jurisdiction of the town and the commission, among other local and state agencies.
Confronted with the DRI denial, Cape Wind took the matter to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board, which has the power to issue a "superceding certificate" that would override local opposition to proposed energy facilities.
Among the nine permits sought as part of the certificate from the siting board by Cape Wind: the DRI permit from the Cape Cod Commission.
In a separate action, Cape Wind also moved to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the town and the Cape commission.
On Thursday, Judge Rufo heard that motion.
Coincidentally, the siting board last Thursday approved a superceding certificate.
As part of that approval, the board directed Cape Wind to work with the towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth to work out agreements concerning the buried power cables. Should the parties fail to do so, the siting board will step in. A final certificate would be issued within 60 days.
In a separate action, the commission has appealed the decision.
But what if the siting board doesn't hold the final say on state and local permits?
That was the argument mounted at Thursday's hearing by attorneys Charles McLaughlin, representing the Town of Barnstable, and Eric Wodlinger, representing the Cape Cod Commission.
They said the Cape Cod Commission Act, passed in 1989, is special legislation that effectively gives the Cape the power to trump decisions by the energy siting board.
Arguing against them was assistant attorney general Ken Salinger and David Rosenzweig, a lawyer representing Cape Wind, who said it didn't.
Salinger and Rosenzweig said the town and commission could appeal the siting board's final decision to the SJC. The board's decision, they said, rendered action in the superior court moot.
Wodlinger, however, said the Cape Cod Commission Act specified that appeals of commission decisions would be heard in superior or land court.
McLaughlin said that even if the case were appealed to the SJC, those justices would welcome an opinion from a superior court judge (ie., Rufo) on the case.
Cape Wind needs the superceding certificate, which effectively would include a DRI approval, as a crucial part of its legal foundation to build and operate the wind farm.
No DRI approval translates into no wind farm.
So the question of who holds the trump card - the siting board or the Cape Cod Commission - will help determine whether the Cape Wind project is built, or not.

Shame on Paul Niedzwiecki

The head of the Cape Cod Commission should be ashamed of himself for spending so much money so frivolously on Cape Wind opposition -- when there are so many more pressing needs at this time.

The Commission is funded by homeowner's taxes. When I as a homeowner agreed to that, I did not intend that my money should be used for this kind of political manipulation.

Of course, it doesn't come as a surprise to me, since Paul Niedzwiecki is not a bit interested in preserving Cape Cod. He was formerly the assistant town manager in Barnstable, and is very much beholden to the people who are funding the anti-Cape Wind effort.

I, for one, think that it's time to abolish the Cape Cod Commission.

I would prefer that my tax dollars be spent on school teachers so kids can learn to read. Commission members could all go out and find regular jobs.

Cape Wind Character Authors Important Science Column

Chris Reddy, the dynamic young marine scientist profiled in the Cape Wind book's chapter on the Buzzards Bay oil spill, has authored an important opinion column in this week's Science.

Kudos to Chris!

His column is about the duty of scientists to explain their work to the public, who foots the bill. We couldn't agree more.

For my new book, to be published in the fall of 2010, I actually had the San Diego Zoo ask me to pay a fee of $250 an hour to interview their scientists!

This is outrageous. In my 30 years as a science journalist, I've never had an institution make such a request.

It's also a perversion of the nature of scientific discussion. If I had to pay Chris $250 an hour for all the help he gave me while I was writing Cape Wind, he would have made more money from the book than I did. Chris invested endless hours explaining the structure of hydrocarbons to me, and never once said he was too busy....

Scientific discussion should be free and open, both within the scientific community and with the public at large.

Here's the summary from the Science web site:

President Obama's inauguration speech delighted scientists when he stated, "We will restore science to its rightful place." But he went on: "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility.… This is the price and the promise of citizenship." For scientists, one often-overlooked responsibility is explaining their work to people. This is not an unreasonable price for receiving public funds to do research. And it promises to combat ignorance, guide sound policymaking, and garner more support for science, while simultaneously inspiring and recruiting new young scientists. Now more than ever, issues such as climate change, obesity, stem cell research, green technology, and evolution are migrating from scientific journals to the nonscience community, from school halls to the halls of Congress. It's critical that scientists venture beyond their laboratories to put these issues into the correct contexts and help the public understand what is known, unknown, and under debate.

To read the whole column, which is well worth the time, you must go to the Science webste.

A Kind Comment From a Reader...

Ms Williams: I ordered your co-authored book several years ago & have passed it around to my friends and family as a “must read,” While not all agree w/me, you should know I have always been in favor of Cape Wind, I have lived in Hyannis, MA for over 40 years. While not a “real Cape Codder,” I am at least old enough to remember things others who have moved here recently do not. Cape Winds is a no brainer! I only wish I had the money to invest in boats to take tourists out to see the Wind Farm when it comes to fruition. I have, however, suggested to others, that they do this. Thank you so much for a really informative background of Cape Wind. Thank goodness you co-authored this book which was one I could not put down from the moment I started reading. It was great reading and as such, I am about to read it again as I do with all great books.

Carol A. Smith

115 Pine Ave

Hyannis, MA 02601

The Lawyers Make More Money

This from the Providence Journal:

AFTER EIGHT long years, Cape Wind project developers seem to be on their way to actually building the 130-turbine, 468-megawatt project proposed for Nantucket Sound.

At a January press conference celebrating a generally positive final environmental-impact report released by the federal Minerals Management Service, Cape Wind head Jim Gordon elatedly predicted that the company might begin construction as early as this year.

In reality, it seems unlikely that construction will begin earlier than 2011. After all, once all the necessary permits are obtained — which may happen this spring — there are other major hurdles that will need to be overcome.

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning,” Winston Churchill said during World War II.

His words also apply to the current phase of the battle over Cape Wind.

Yet to come is a Record of Decision from MMS, an agency which has been notoriously slow to work with renewable-energy projects. That document will spell out the conditions under which Cape Wind’s turbines will be allowed to operate.

Look for Cape Wind foes to file as many lawsuits as possible based on those conditions. After all, in December 2004, Southeastern Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Bill Delahunt pounded a speaker’s podium in the Martha’s Vineyard public high-school auditorium and threatened “endless litigation” if the project were permitted.

Cape Wind opponents are now desperately fighting a series of rearguard actions intended to lay the groundwork for Delahunt’s predicted lawsuits.

Last fall, Cape Wind opponents charged that public safety would be endangered because the turbines would interfere with the operation of marine radar systems. Although the U.S. Coast Guard studied the issue and proposed mitigation measures to solve the problem, the issue is quite likely to wind up in court.

Opponents have also raised similar concerns over air-traffic safety. In response, the Federal Aviation Administration is studying those concerns and expects to issue a finding “soon after” March 22, according to an agency spokesman.

Like the Coast Guard, the FAA will propose mitigations, which could involve moving the turbines or increasing the amount of lighting. Other mitigation possibilities include the installation of upgraded radar equipment at a regional air-traffic-control center in Falmouth. Those upgrades could cost between $1.7 million and $15 million.

At issue would be who would pay for the upgrades, and whether the upgrades constitute a wise investment in the first place.

For quite a while, the FAA has wanted to close down the Falmouth facility, which is long past its prime. A much more modern facility in Merrimack, N.H., would be able to perform the same traffic-safety monitoring functions more efficiently, more safely and less expensively.

However, the FAA’s efforts have been steadfastly resisted by Congressman Delahunt and his aide, Mark Forest.

No surprise there.

The real issue facing Cape Wind now is the difficulty of raising the nearly $2 billion that will probably be needed to build the project, given the currently tight and risk-averse capital markets.

Says Gordon: “The credit crisis is definitely impacting banks’ appetite for loans, but the move that the federal government is making to ensure that the banks begin lending again is going to be helpful. . . . We’re hopeful that we’ll be able to finance this plant by the end of ’09 or 2010.”

Wendy Williams, an occasional contributor, is a Cape Cod-based science writer.

In Memorium

01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, March 3, 2009

EDWARD ACHORN

THESE ARE TRYING times for the First Amendment.

In Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, an old man named Faber recalls the death of print. “I remember the newspapers dying like huge moths. No one wanted them back. No one missed them.”

In the novel, the death of newspapers — prompted by a culture that had become absorbed in what could be seen on a screen, primarily sex and violence — is the prelude to government control over information and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. Eventually, all forms of print are hunted down and eliminated on the grounds that they promote bad feelings in easily offended groups.

I don’t know if we are heading there, but the signs are ominous.

Some of America’s most distinguished and historic newspapers, from The Philadelphia Inquirer to the Chicago Tribune to The San Francisco Chronicle, are in dire straits as Americans turn away from print, and gather snippets of information from the Internet or TV. Newspapers are responding, as best they can, with layoffs and cutbacks in coverage, hollowing out the vital sources of information the public needs if it hopes to govern itself and defend its rights under our republican form of government.

Good citizens once made it a point to subscribe to a print edition of at least one newspaper. But those who recognize it is their duty to be informed voters are dying off, and younger Americans do not seem to apprehend it.

This is a bitter tragedy for those of us who have devoted our lives to print journalism. But the tragedy extends far beyond us to all of society. I do not see how a vibrant democracy can function without newspapers. Some say the Internet, TV and radio can do the trick just fine. But I can’t help noticing that the “new media” get the vast majority of their information from newspapers, which spend the money and dodge the incoming missiles to produce the facts. And when newspapers cut back, the vaunted “new media” fail (spectacularly) to step into the breach.

Print is an extraordinary medium, one that encourages depth of thought like no other. It is not as hectoring as a radio show; it is not as vapid as TV; it seems to promote better manners and more reasoned discussion than the Internet’s tiny electronic dots.

People forget that it was print — particularly in the form of newspapers — that democratized information, made it accessible even to those who were not rich, and disseminated it more easily than ever before. A good newspaper builds a community of generally shared values, rather than splitting us off into isolated and hostile tribes.

Print was the driving force, certainly, of the Enlightenment, which spread the idea of universal natural rights — that every human being, regardless of rank, country or race, is born with rights that no man or government can legitimately take away, and that people armed with information can govern themselves.

These ideas are the very stuff of the American experiment, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, which states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This set of values was the crucible of the destruction of slavery and the advancement of women, and it created the freest and richest country in history.

Print is the engine of freedom.

The Founders understood the value of newspapers, even if they did not always like what was published. Thomas Jefferson, who as secretary of state put one ink-stained wretch on his department’s payroll to attack his own president, George Washington, had limited affection for newspapers. As a cranky old man, he refused to subscribe to any of them, and declared: “Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”

Yet he also observed: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

After the Constitution was written, both to create a strong federal government and try to hem in its natural tendency to amass dangerous levels of control over its citizens, the founders appended the First Amendment. As they saw it, quite rightly, freedom of speech and of the press, and of religion, serve as powerful constraints against tyranny.

As newspapers fade, I see our culture becoming cruder, more enamored of bullies, less respectful of basic freedoms and dissenting views. Some lawmakers, and even former President Clinton, who did not like being taunted by radio talk-show hosts, are promoting the Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine, in an attempt to shut up criticism from the right.

This is a shameful bid by politicians to use government to silence dissent. I can take or leave radio, but if the pols get away with it, they will no doubt be emboldened to try to control printed information they do not like, as well, probably on the grounds (as in Fahrenheit 451) that it stirs ill will or “hate.” And our so-called intellectuals, who in the “new media” culture seem to be turning increasingly into bigoted and self-righteous partisans, do not apparently detect the threat posed by such intolerance.

Old man Faber was wrong. The newspapers, should they die, would be missed. Terribly.

Edward Achorn is The Journal’s deputy editorial-pages editor ( eachorn@projo.com).