Pre-Ramble:  So, an editorial in today’s WSJ deems the Cape Wind project, a wind farm approved to be installed in Nantucket Sound, a “lousy deal.”  

In addition to creating an environmental eyesore in what some regard as a near sacred piece of natural shoreline and animal habitat off the coast of Massachusetts, the average electric bill in the region served by the wind turbines will jump up by an estimated $1.59 per month.

Environmental protection – The article goes on to note the “comic irony” in the slew of ”archaic” regulations bearing down on the clean energy project including lawsuits filed by the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, tribal protection laws, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.

I would like to note a less comic irony here by asking whether these authors would rather:

A.  Endure a reported coastal eyesore and pay increased wind energy bills, … OR …

B.  Be party to the destruction of miles upon miles of shoreline and harm to potentially hundreds of thousands of plant and animal life while incurring payments of $8 billion and counting to clean up oil that is gushing unchecked into the Gulf of Mexico from the wreck of the off-shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon.

?? 

The Take-Away:  Hands down, I’d rather look at hundreds of giant metal structures twirling silently in the wind, than jingle an extra $1.59 in my pocket while watching the absurdly futile efforts of relief workers scraping tons of black sludge into garbage bags and scrubbing limp shore birds overcome by oil.  Nothing comic or ironic here.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS