No Se Nada

Two items today.

First item, from the NIMBY side of life: In case you haven't heard, some folks are trying to install a wind farm in Nantucket Sound while others are trying to stop it. Opponents have no legit objections other than the most important political objection: some very rich people with waterfront property don't want their viewshed to be gummed up with the sight of 415-foot-tall, 1MW turbines on the water. (Of course, viewshed is all relative, as the closest any turbine will be to land is 5.2 miles.)

But that kind of argument won't go over well with the media and others who might make hay on politicians killing the project, so the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has come up with some better-sounding but ultimately absurd objections. You can read them throughout their webpage and they are too numerous to all pick apart, but here's just one.

On the APNS FAQ page, they ask the question, "What Would The Impacts Of This Project Be On Fish And Fishing?" They don't actually answer the question, most likely because no science says that fish would be impacted in any way (though if you know of any fisheries biologist with real science on it, I'd like to know). Instead they say:

No fishing or boating group supports this project. Those who use these waters know the real effects this plant will have on the safety of navigation and fishing. The Sound is one of the richest fishing grounds on the east coast and a hugely popular recreation area. 130 turbines over 24 square miles will present significant obstacles to fishing, navigation and wildlife in all types of weather.

Hmmm...130 turbines over 24 square miles? Why that's five turbines in every square mile of the project! How are the little fishing boats possibly going to navigate around such a congested sea? And you bet these things are navigational hazards! For pilots who need seeing-eye dogs. Any captain who can't navigate around a 415 foot-tall obstacle, even at night (and the turbines will undoubtedly be well-lit), has his/her own issues to deal with. Further, it's not like the blades are coming down to the water. From what I can tell, the blade tips will be spinning 250 feet above the water surface, meaning fishermen and other boaters need only navigate around the turbine trunks.

Their other objections roughly follow in silliness. My objection to their NIMBY objections would not be so stark if this action wasn't so blatantly hypocritical. For what has this region done but complain vociferously (and rightly) for decades about acid rain pollution from dirty power generation out of the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan region? New England has long been affected significantly by dirty power generation. Now they have a chance to become part of the solution -- they can help move away from coal-fired power generation by putting clean energy into the grid. When given the chance to do so, however, an upswelling of opposition has formed, and taken into its grips such liberal stalwarts as Ed Kennedy and conservatives like Mit Romney. At least John Kerry seems to be on the right side of this.

Second item. It's a familiar story: gas prices are following crude prices in heading north and politicians are squirming in their chairs as the American public is getting antsy (at least according to the press). Since the R's are in power, the D's are trying to figure out how to ride this magic blanket for all it is worth.

The problem is, neither side is going to level with the American people and in the long run the American people are going to have to figure it out for themselves. Are they going to get mad at their elected leaders once they wake up and realize that nobody was leveling with them?

Both parties have something they need to get off their chest:

R: we're in Iraq to keep gas prices low for you. It's a trade-off. Your income tax money is paying for Iraq (now at $10B/month), and us owning Iraq means lower crude prices. Well, that was how it was supposed to work. But we screwed up big. Now you're gonna get higher future taxes and high gas prices. Sorry!

D: Gas prices are never going to come down and it's time for you to realize that. We're getting close to Hubbert's Peak and once we get on the backside of that peak, which could be any year now, gas prices are going to skyrocket. So get used to it, stop looking to politicians to make your life better and go buy a plug-in hybrid.

The D's should start this mantra now, but they can't start until after the midterm elections because the American public still believes that politicians have a Gas Prices Control Switch. If only those damn R's would hit the Switch, we wouldn't be paying $3/gal when we were paying 99¢/gal just six years ago.

The gas prices issue is perhaps becoming for the D's what the abortion distraction issue is for the R's. The thought goes that while R's (almost) everywhere campaign on abortion, the R power structure doesn't really want big national change on abortion laws, because retaining open abortion laws means continued support from those vehemently opposed to abortion. (Of course, anybody who still thinks abortion politics is cut-and-dried should read this.)

Similarly -- and I admit that it's an apples-oranges comparison -- the D's are in a position to campaign on gas prices because two R oilmen head the executive branch and a R-controlled Congress passed an obviously inconsequential energy bill. The D's can say "we're the party of lower gas prices!!" just as the R's say "we're the anti-abortion party!!"

But what happens when the D's finally get power back and find they can't do a damn thing about gas prices? Same thing as when the R's get power and find they can't do a damn thing about abortion laws? Will the American public continue to believe indefinitely that the Switch exists? Will they realize eventually that the R's are just using the emotions of abortion opponents for votes?