Sea Shepherd opposes Cape Wind project
Sea Shepherd opposes Cape Wind project
Add to the growing list of opponents to Cape Wind's proposed windmill farm on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound the no-compromise direct action organization Sea Shepherd. Captain Paul Watson, founder and president of Sea Shepherd and once co-founder of Greenpeace International, told this reporter that "this project is a threat to seabirds and as a marine wildlife conservation organization, we represent our clients, marine wildlife and this Cape Wind project is not in their interest".
Back in December, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. came out against the project in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Kennedy, a seasoned and highly respected environmentalist, wrote "Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons". In the article Kennedy went on to point out the ecological drawbacks of the project point by point in a reasonable and respectful tone. Important questions of the projects potential air and sea traffic safety have also been raised. Almost before the ink was dry on the page however, a storm of controversy arose and it has been brewing ever since.
Some backers of Cape Wind took the low road, attacking Kennedy and using some of the same corporate tactics and name-calling they themselves have been subjected to in the past. It hasn’t been very pretty. Others, like John Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, cast doubt on the integrity of Cape Wind opponents with statements such as "The opponents of Cape Wind would have you believe that to protect the environment, we need to oppose the wind farm", as if their efforts were contrived and their motives of concern for the environment were less than genuine.
Paul Watson says, “The position of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on Cape Wind is that we are in full support of Bobbi Kennedy Jr.’s position. We also agree with Mike Roselle". Roselle, one of the founders of Earth First! also sided with Kennedy and took his attackers to task on his website. It makes for strange bedfellows given that Kennedy is very much a product of establishment politics, a lawyer and NRDC stalwart, while Watson and Roselle are leading voices in the radical direct action segment of the environmental movement. In addition, while most working class fisher organizations oppose Cape Wind's plan, as do many area residents, some of the members of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound are millionaire yachtsmen. Perhaps even stranger is the fact that Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney also opposes Cape Wind's plans, though more likely for reasons having to do with his presidential aspirations rather than any concern for Nantucket Sound and those who dwell there.
Regardless of the strange alliance of opponents, what seems lost in the ongoing argument brings us back to Kennedy's statement about privatizing the commons. While it may seem odd coming from a nominal patrician, the fact is that Cape Wind, the combined corporate entity of Energy Management Inc. and Wind Management LLP, intends to errect their industrial operation in public space, and not just any public space. Nantucket Sound, like the adjoining National Seashore where Thoreau walked the "Great Beach", is a national treasure. The question begs to be asked: would Cape Wind and its supporters propose errecting its derricks on the edge of the Grand Canyon? Maybe the Grand Tetons? Yellowstone? We think not, but proposing a windfarm or ANY industrial facility to be built in Nantucket Sound seems just as absurd when other already developed sites exist. In fact, given the growing intensity of storms in this day and age, one wonders why anyone would wish to build on the ocean at all.
Yes, climate disruption driven by a collapsing industrial civilization is a critical issue for the health and wellbieng, the very survuval of the biosphere. Alternative energy facilities like windmills and solar voltaics, along with REAL energy conservation efforts, can help ease the increasing CO2 loading of Earth's atmosphere if they actually replace fossil fuel power plants (not anywhere near the needed attention is being paid to on-site power production for individual homes and businesses). But the question remains: just what are we going to sacrafice in order to stem the tide of global climate change? Will our grandchildren inherit a world of ruined land and seascapes developed for the maintainence of contemporary consumer lifestyles? Do we cast aside ecological integrity, the lives of countless other creatures and indeed unparralelled natural beauty so that we can continue shopping for the next big thing? We don't need to trash our natural biogems to "save the planet", we need to trash our unsustainable lifestyles, our deadly mindsets.
- d.o.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| birdmills.jpg | 19.49 KB |
Comments
Naught101 not
101 says: >>Come on Tribal - this argument is a load of crap. there's no reason why Cape Wind shouldn't go ahead that's more important than the reasons it SHOULD go ahead.<< Say what?? Are you an employee of Cape Wind? I'm willing to bet that the info glut above would be massivly overshadowed by the damage that will be done by Cape Wind. The Cape Wind industrial sacrifice zone will be the size of Manhattan: all those turning blades and aircraft warning lights. It's a recipe for bird kill. In any case, i smell a rat in the above posts and suspect that it is being orchestrated by Cape Wind proponents, employed or otherwise. >>it's true that it would be better that it was a public project, but that's another fight.<< Why is that "another fight"? Maybe after you and your like-minded friends have sold off say the Grand Canyon, the ridges in Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons to private profiteers we'll engage in that fight? How about we put a set of blades in the raised hand of the Statue of Liberty! Why haven't you considered alternative sites?? You guys have fallen into the Bush era fear factory. You're ready to cave to any seemingly "green" energy project that comes down the pike because of the climate crisis. Maybe if you put your energy into CONSERVATION and ENERGY EFFICENCY and LIFESTYLE CHANGE you might actually be able to have some real effect on the climate. Wake-up! You're looking to create MORE energy when you should be SAVING energy.
Wow.
Tribal, making false accusations doesn't put your aguments in a good light. I'm never even been to america, let alone had links with the Cape Wind mob.
Aside from that, the bird kills argument is fairly bunk. The Altamont Pass windfarm is know to have high rates of bird kills, but that's becuase it has old, small, fast-spinning turbines, with lattice-structure towers that invite nesting. That's absolutely not the case with new windfarms, which kill far less birds than cars, cats, of coal power.
The point about privatisation is that it is concievable that we could avoid climate change with a totally free-market system. It's less likely than with a more co-operative system, but it's concievable. On the other hand, it's not going to be possible to have a cooperative society with collectively owned energy generation if we don't do something about climate change damn quickly, because there won't be any society to be collective in.
I agree absolutely. I'd rather cut coal power consumption than build new wind power, how ever, if you want to maintain the current populations with a liveable way of life you're gonna need some electricity, and it may as well come from wind.
The overarching point is that this is not an article on climate change or the effects thereof, it's a reactionist NIMBY article on the (relatively minor) local impacts (mostly to do with visual problems, apparently), which will have an over all negative impact on the course of climate activism.
cheers
ned
--------
"This is the first age that's ever paid much attention to the future, which is a little ironic since we may not have one." - Arthur C. Clarke
Throwing out the baby w/the bathwater
Comparing bird kills, and thus considering the better of evils, is all god squad thinking guys. we need power that doesn't kill.
I'm not hearing much here about the corporate privatization of the commons, the modus operandi of Cape Wind (other than that's "another fight for another time".....what time is that?). I guess you guys are willing to make such compromises regardless of the obvious message. Cape Wind could be constructed on private land in high wind areas, land that's already trashed, but apparently they (and you) aren't even willing to consider that in your rush to ruin Nantucket Sound.
BTW, i'm working class and live on the other end of the state in case you think i'm another wealthy resident of the shoreline worried about the view.
***************************************
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical world."
- Thomas Jefferson
***************************************
Further to this Coal Plant kills 3000 birds in 1 night
http://futureenergy.org/FloridaFieldNatural.pdf
Without even looking at the Global Warming effects, here a coal plant kills 3000 birds in 1 evening, and around 2000 (count incomplete) the next evening.
I will try and contact Captain Paul Watson about this, and bring it to his attention, as Coal plants (the alternative) are killing more birds.
FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST
QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY
VOL. 11, No. 3 AUGUST 1983 PAGES 45-68
BIRD CASUALTIES AT A CENTRAL FLORIDA POWER PLANT
DAVID S. MAEHR, A. GORDON SPRATT, AND DAVID K VOIGTS
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Wildlife Research
Laboratory, 4005 S. Main St., Gainesville, Florida 32601; A.G.S.,
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1239 S.W. Tenth St.,
Oscala, Florida 32674; D.K.V., Florida Power Corporation, P.O. Box
14041, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Bird mortality at lighthouses, bridges, power lines, radio and TV
antennas, tall buildings, and smoke stacks is well documented. Weir
(1976) and Avery et al. (1980) thoroughly reviewed bird kills at
man-made obstacles, primarily in North America. Bird Kills in
Florida were summarized for communication towers in Leon County
(Stoddard 1962, Stoddard and Norris 1967, Crawford 1974, 1981),
Orange County (Kale 1971, Taylor and Anderson 1973, 1974), Ft.
Pierce and Tallahassee (Kale 1971). Such losses of birds can provide
information about migration patterns and influences of
weather on migration. We discuss in this paper two instances of
passerine mortality at the Crystal River Generating Facility, Citrus
County, Florida.
METHODS
The Crystal River Generating Facility of the Florida Power Corporation
is approximately 2.2 km E of the Gulf of Mexico and covers 1 540
hectares in central Citrus County Florida. Two pairs of chimneys
associated with seperate fossil fuel generating units are 152 and 183 m
tall. The shorter chimneys, which have been in operation since November
1969, are painted with alternating bands of red and white and have
flashing red lights. The taller chimneys are unpainted and equipped with
flashing white "strobe" lights. One of these stacks was completed during
the spring of 1981. The other became operable during the summer of 1982.
None of the smoke stacks are floodlighted.
We began collecting birds at 10 00 and continued until 16 00 on 23
Septempber 1982. Birds were refrigerated after transport to the Wildlife
Research Laboratory in Gainesville and identified the following day. On
24 September, we identified and estimated numbers of birds on the site
after a second kill. Estimates of total kills on both nights were made
by Florida Power Corpora- Florida Field Naturalist 11: 45-49, 1983.
45
PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2 PAGE 2
FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST
tion employees when they removed birds from the site. Subsequent
verifications using conventional estimating methods was not possible.
Weather data were obtained from N.O.A.A. National Climate Center
(Asheville, North Carolina) and from Florida Power Corporation weather
records. All collected birds are deposited in the collection of the
Florida State Museum, Gainesville, Florida. Scientific names of birds
are in Table 1.
RESULTS
On both nights, conditions near the facility were overcast to foggy with
0-16kph winds out of the north and northeast. These conditions were
apparently associated with a cold front that passed over central Florida
on the night of 22 September 1982. No measurable rainfall fell on the
nights of the casualties; however 3 - 5 cm fell on 22 September.
On 23 September 1982, 1 265 individuals from a kill estimated by
Florida Power Corporation employees to be at least 3000 birds
were collected beneath the two pairs of chimneys. Twenty-nine
passerine species were identified, the most abundant being the
White-eyed Vireo (49%), Northern Parula (12%), Red-eyed Vireo (9%),
Common Yellowthroat (7%), and Palm Warbler (5%) (Table 1). A systematic
count was not possible on 24 September 1982; however, an estimated 2 000
birds were involved. Of 19 species identified on the 24th, the Gray
Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria
citrea) were not represented in the 23 September collection. Estimated
percentages for the 24th were White-eyed Vireo 60%, Red-eyed Vireo
30%, and common Yellowthroat (5%). On both nights, the 183-meter
tall stacks were associated with 95% of mortality. A fan-shaped
distribution of dead birds reflected the prevailing northerly winds.
Ring-billed Gulls (larus delawarensis) were observed carrying
bird carcases away from the facility and numerous "feather
puddles" (Crawford 1974) and tracks of domestic cats (Felis
catus) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) were observed. While preda-tors
and scavengers may have removed a number of birds from the facility,
the removal of many more for safety and sanitary reasons greatly
reduced the total available for collection.
DISCUSSION
The mortality estimate of 3 000 birds may be one of the largest
single night kills recorded for Florida (see Avise and Crawford
1981). Though most species found at the Crystal River Facility
PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3 PAGE 3
MAEHR, SPRATT, AND VOIGTS Bird casualties
Table 1. Bird casualties at the Crystal River Generating Facility,
Florida Power Corporation, Citrus County, Florida, on 23 September 1982.
Species 183-Stacks 152-Stacks
Empidonax spp. 15
Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 1
White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus) 595 35
Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) 16 1
Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceous) 120 1
Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) 2
Northern Parula (Parula americana) 156 1
Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) 1
Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pennsylvanica) 7
Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) 18
Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) 1
Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) 1
Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) 4
Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) 1
Praire Warbler (Dendroica discolor) 25
Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) 60
Black-and-White Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 18 1
American Redstart (Septophaga ruticilla) 33 1
Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) 3
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) 11 1
Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) 3
Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) 5
Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) 1
Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 88 6
Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) 25
Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) 1
Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 3
Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) 1
Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) 2
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) 1
TOTAL 1 218 47
were migrants expected in fall in Florida, a few were noteworthy. The
BlackthroatedGr een Warbler specimen is an early fall record, and the
Connecticut Warbler is an unusual fall visitor with only one fall record
reported by Crawford (1981). The 630 White-eyed Vireos collected
exceeded by 112 the 25-year fall total killed at the Leon County Site
(Crawford 1981). If all bird casualties had been available for
identification, this difference would have been much greater.
AN explanation for the high percentage of White-eyed Vireos found at the
Crystal River Facility may be the reliance of this species on coastlines
for navigation during migration,
PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 PAGE 4
making it more susceptible to collision with a coastal facility.
Continued monitoring of the area for future kills may reveal other
interesting patterns of Florida bird migration.
Most papers discussing bird mortality at man-made structures are
generally thorough in reporting new records and other migration data.
Few address the task of mitigating the huge annual loss of bird life
caused by these structures. It is generally agreed (Weir 1976) that
lighting appears to attract migrating birds under overcast conditions.
Although we can not here directly address methods to prevent the
continued mortality at man-made obstacles, the need to investigate
alternatives of safe lighting should be stressed. Al-though 50 m
shorter, only 5% of the mortality occurred at the red and white
painted stacks with red lights. The reflecting qualities of the paint
may have helped birds avoid impact after their initial at-traction to
lights, or red may have been a less alluring color. Any suggested
cause and effect relationships, however, must be viewed with care.
The heavy mortality at this strobe-lit facility is counter to findings
of other studies. Taylor (1981) and Quilliam (1981) have suggested
that strobe lights are less alluring to migrating birds than are colored
lights. Another confounding factor was the well-lighted construction
activity beneath the stacks with strobe lights. These lights, primarily
incandescent, may have had some influence on the behavior of the
birds involved. Because many factors can in-fluence bird mortality at
tall structures, further investigation is necessary to determine the
exact causes of collisions.
A daily monitoring program was initiated by Florida Power Corporation
immediately following these collisions at the Crystal River Generating
Facility. In this way, valuable information on bird migration in this
coastal situation can be accumulated and used to answer many of the
questions about massive seasonal movements. Also, any changes in
lighting conditions may be evaluated by noting changes in casualty
rates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Florida Power Corporation officials for permission to collect
birds at the Crystal River Facility. S. A. Nesbitt, A.E. Shapiro, J. A.
Rodgers, and K. C. Wenner assisted in bird identifications and provided
valuable suggestions on the manuscript. R. L. Crawford and H. W. Kale
provided valuable insight into the bird-tower problem. Comments by J. A.
Kushlan and W. K. Taylor improved the quality of the manuscript.
PAGE 5 PAGE 5 PAGE 5 PAGE 5 PAGE 5 PAGE 5 PAGE 5 PAGE 5
MAEHR, SPRATT AND VOIGTS Bird casualties 49
LITERATURE CITED
AVERY, M. L. P. F. SPRINGER, AND N.S. DAILEY 1980 Avian mortality at
manmade structures: an annotated bibliography (revised). U. S. Fish and
Wildl. Ser., Biolog. Ser. Prog., FWS/OBS\u201480/54.
AVISE, J. C., AND R. L. CRAWFORD. 1981. A matter of lights and death.
Nat. Hist. 90 (9) : 6-14
CRAWFORD, R.L. 1974. Bird casualties at Leon County, Florida TV tower:
October 1966-September 1973. Bull. Tall Timbers Res. Sta. 18: 1-27
CRAWFORD, R. L. 1981. Bird casualties at a Leon County, Florida TV
tower: a 25
year migration study. Bull. Tall Timbers Res Sta 22: 1-30
KALE, H. W., II. 1971. Florida region. Amer. Birds 25: 723-733.
QUILLAM, H. R. 1981. Bird kills at the Lenox Generating Station Blue
Bill 28:96
STODDARD, H. L., SR. 1962. Bird casualties at a Leon County, Florida TV
tower, 1955-1961. Bull Tall Timbers Res. Sta. 1: 1-94
STODDARD, H. L., AND R. A. NORRIS. 1967. Bird casualties at a Leon
County, Florida TV tower: an eleven-year study. Bull. Tall Timbers Res.
Sta. 8:1-104.
TAYLOR, W. K. 1981. No longer a big killer. Fla. Nat. 54: 4-5, 10.
TAYLOR, W. K., AND B. H. ANDERSON. 1973. Nocturnal migrants killed at a
central Florida TV tower; autumns 1969-1971. Wilson Bull. 85: 42-51
TAYLOR, W. K., AND B. H. ANDERSON. 1974. Nocturnal migrants killed at a
central Florida TV tower, autumn 1972. Fla. Field Nat 2: 40-43
WEIR, R. D. 1976. Anotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made
obstacles: a review of the state of the art and solutions. Dept.
Fisheries and Environment, Canadian Wildl. Serv., Ontario Region.
REVIEW
Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Part
I.
Gaviiformes through Pelecaniformes. ----R. B. Clapp, R. C. Banks, D.
Morgan- Jones, and W. A. Hoffman 1982. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv., Off. Biol
Serv. FWS/ OBS-82/01, 637 pp. And Marine birds of the southeastern
United States and Gulf of Mexico. Part II. Anseriformes. --- R. B.
Clapp, D. Morgan-Jones, and R. C. Banks 1982. P. S. Fish Wild. Serv.,
Off. Biol. Serv FWS/OBS-82/20, 491 pp.
-----These reports summarize the status of marine birds in the
southeastern United States and explore the potential effects on these
species of the develop-ment of petroleum resources on the outer
continental shelf. Part I covers 39 species; Part II, 41. The authors
can be justly proud of this comprehensive, virtually complete, summary
of all available information on the species in-volved. An invaluable
publication . ------Fred E. Lohrer, Archbold Biological Station, Route
2, Box 180,
Lake Placid Florida 33853.
damn right
I have to say, Mathew, that I thought at first that your answer was a bit hasty, but after reading the opinion piece by Robert Kennedy Junior, I have to say, I'm with you all the way.
I was under the impression that the Cape Wind project was seriously ecologically flawed, but after seeing that piece, I can see that it's not, and that Kennedy is clawing at the last remaining ribbons of a lost arguement. I'm pretty sure I could rebut every one of his valid points, not to mention the hypocrisy of his other points. 'To the contrary, our most important wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population centersMORE'?? what the hell? this guy is a nutter. not to mention his possible links to the oil industry (possible, some people write stupid shit on wikipedia).
and that attached image is overly emotive, and absolutely unlinked to the Cape Wind project, which obviously won't be open-web tubines, and will be slower and larger. these newer turbines have VERY low birdkill rates.
Come on Tribal - this argument is a load of crap. there's no reason why Cape Wind shouldn't go ahead that's more important than the reasons it SHOULD go ahead. it's true that it would be better that it was a public project, but that's another fight.
______________
"This is the first age that's ever paid much attention to the future, which is a little ironic since we may not have one." - Arthur C. Clarke
Dissapointed
As a Sea Shepherd member and supporter, I'm disappointed in this particular instance with Sea Shepherd's stance,
We are heading towards acidification of the oceans with Climate Change which will kill all whales in the Sea. I also represent my clients the biological diverse ecosystems including all their oranisms on the planet. And I want serious windpower to replace fossil fuels, much of which is from periods on earth when there was little if any life.