Offshore wind power is a rapidly growing renewable energy source that has finally set sail for America. Cape Wind, a private corporation, hopes to harness Nantucket Sound’s constant gusts for 130 turbines that produce 420 megawatts of electricity, enough to power half a million homes and businesses. Each turbine would rise 270 feet above the water line, where a boxy hub links three blades together. At the tallest blade tip, they will reach approximately 40 stories in height. The lot of turbines will be arranged in a 25 square mile grid, located 5.2 miles from shore at its closest point.

However, Cape Wind’s endeavor, which is the first proposed wind park in the U.S., has stumbled upon well-funded opposition groups who have befriended political heavyweights of both parties. Opponents hope the state will step in with stringent regulations to “protect” American coastlines from becoming visually polluted with industrial windmill fields. The strangest of bedfellows, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Ted Stevens (R-AK), are pushing for a final version of the U.S. Coast Guard’s authorizing bill that provides Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with the veto power he needs to kill the project, which was approved by a House committee on April 7th. A few days later, Nantucket voters, in a nonbinding referendum, voted against “[supporting] the generation of electricity by wind power as proposed for a site in Nantucket Sound.” Set to provide one of the most environmentally benign and cost-competitive energy sources, this peculiar project has shaken the values of local residents to the core. On the one hand, Cape Cod would surely be better off if weaned from of its current power sources: carbon-intensive oil and coal-fired plants, plus one nuclear reactor. On the other hand, some environmentalists worry whether it is worth the price of muddling the “natural” open horizon.

Picturesque Nantucket Sound conjoins Martha’s Vineyard to Nantucket Island off the coast of Massachusetts, serving as prime real estate for some of America’s wealthiest liberals, including the Kennedys. The wind farm is attractive because it provides a near-zero marginal cost (wind is free) energy source that does not exacerbate global climate change. Also, the fact that Cape Wind plans to finance the $600M cost through conventional loans, rather than lavish government subsidies, speaks to the project’s economic viability.

Advocates say that the wind farm epitomizes the future of renewable energy. But critics argue that turbines will disturb birds, damage the fishing industry, cause human harm, and weaken the tourism industry. Furthermore, some environmentalists object to the idea that a company can control a body of water. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the main opposition group, has voiced these concerns and asserts that unless people want a string of wind farms along the east coast, America needs a better system of regulation. In its ongoing public relations campaigns, the horror of windmills randomly cropping up in your backyard is deeply instilled into the viewer. In reality, the issue is far more complex—existing administrative fragmentation imposes a lengthy approval process that greatly hinders wind farm expansion.

During the run-up to final approval, Cape Wind submitted its plans for an environmental cost-benefit analysis, required by the Endangered Species Act, to be undertaken by the government. Hence, last year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) with results that should have allayed many of the opposition’s concerns. From a per-case review of project alternatives to a per-species evaluation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, the report concluded that there would be very few lasting ecological impacts. Furthermore, human hazards are unlikely, given the modern magnetic shielding technology that prevents interference with cardiac pacemakers. This is consistent with European empirical studies in Denmark and Britain, both countries that have successful offshore wind parks. For example, traditional fears about bird mortality in these regions were largely unfounded as their rates were discovered to be significantly lower than even background bird mortality levels. The DEIS did prescribe remedies for lessening the visual pollution, recommending moving the turbines to points equidistant
from local townships in order to maximize the distance between the residents and the wind farm. This suggestion was promptly implemented by Cape Wind and the resulting proposal should not detract from the existing landscape.

Overshadowed by the Cape Wind/Alliance row, however, are the interests of Nantucket’s permanent residents. Some fear that the wind farm may dampen tourist revenue, which serves as the lifeblood of the area. Yet, this is precisely the reason why many other “year-rounders” support the project. Much of this growing and less wealthy population would like to reduce their reliance on tourism. They desire to see themselves as “national energy pioneers.” In essence, these residents are the true stakeholders in the region, depending on the prospective $21.8M of annual economic output from the farm.

In contrast, the wealthy Kennedys and Cronkites epitomize the hypocritical not-in-my-backyard syndrome particularly endemic to high-value areas. The heart of the opposition’s argument entails resistance to alleged visual pollution by wind turbines. Robert Kennedy Jr. claims to be a “strong advocate of wind farms on the oceans and high seas, but [believes] there are appropriate places for everything [and] Nantucket Sound is a wilderness which people need to experience.” Where the wind farm should go, he does not specify. Also, the fact that Nantucket Sound is one of the few economically and environmentally optimal sites for a wind farm is entirely disregarded. These opponents continue to proclaim that they are ardent defenders of Nantucket’s intrinsic value. However, given that their vacation homes have disrupted the pristine wilderness and delineated the area into property parcels, proponents argue that this “natural” open horizon has already been tainted. Few reasons remain as to why companies cannot prudently develop offshore sites with reasonable investment-backed expectations of property rights.

Since Nantucket Sound is the first offshore wind project in American waters, it is a good idea to take precautions before finalizing it. Visual pollution concerns are certainly valid, but in this case, seem to amount to smaller truths relative to the fact that Cape Cod’s air contains more carbon today than at any time in history. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is unlikely to be met through demand-side management alone. If politicians are serious about trying to develop carbon-neutral energy sources, wind power is one of the few renewable resources that can be exploited while providing the side benefits of increased energy independence. Proponents expound that, with careful siting, offshore wind can be a highly beneficial ocean energy resource with a much smaller environmental footprint than the coal, oil, and nuclear plants that currently power the island.

Perhaps a step back from the current legislative squabbles will illuminate the greater reality that Nantucket’s sea-level existence has the most to lose if global climate change continues unabated.