Trees Not Turbines
At best, a project like Cape Wind might save us 10 cents on our electric bill. For that same 10 cents, I would rather plant a tree.
Trees not only remove CO2 and pollutants like dust, ash, pollen, smoke and dangerous gases from our atmosphere but they give back life giving oxygen, prevent soil erosion, beautify our communities and homes, raise our property values, save dollars on our heating and cooling bills and add precious wildlife habitat, some things Cape Wind will never do.
Fear of Global Warming, dependence on foreign oil and rising electric rates have made us feel helpless and prompted complicated, controversial, community dividing and expensive experimental solutions like the Cape Wind project.
Rather than empowering the citizens with what we can do to help, we asked to put our fate and faith in the hands of more industrial development rather than in ourselves and our ability to solve our problems.
Margaret Mead said "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."
Trees should not be overlooked. They are nature's way of clearing our planet of pollution. And in turn they provide the oxygen we breathe. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture "One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people"
Cape Wind has claimed it will reduce CO2 emissions by 800,000 tons per year. A claim, not backed up by facts however. But, be that as it may, if every citizen in the Commonwealth of MA were to plant one tree, we would not only Reduce but we would Remove more than 800,000 tons of CO2 per year from our atmosphere along with pollutants like dust, ash, pollen, smoke and dangerous gases and do something Cape Wind can never do, add oxygen back into the atmosphere.
One mature tree planted by a house can reduce air conditioning needs and can save energy used for heating, it can absorbs 10 lbs of air pollutants, including 4 lbs of ozone and 3 lbs of particulates, it can intercepts 760 gal of rainfall in its crown, thereby reducing runoff of polluted stormwater and flooding and it can clean 330 lbs of CO2 from the atmosphere through direct absorption in the tree's wood and reduced power plant emissions due to cooling energy savings. This one tree can reduce the same amount of atmospheric CO2 as released by a typical car driven 500 miles.
Those of us who oppose Cape Wind in favor of trees are often called NIMBY's but ironically, the name-callers are often NIMBY's themselves. Two years or so ago in Boston the NIMBY's, living along the Charles River, opposed the planting of trees saying they would ruin their view.
But, in a community like Chelsea, MA where Energy Management Inc, the parent company of Cape Wind, the view is secondary to the health of its citizens. EMI has proposed a fossil fuel burning power plant that will spew more sulfur, nitrogen oxide and 37 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and straight into the lungs of the citizens and school children already suffering the highest hospital asthma and cardio vascular disease rates in the State.
If Cape Wind and Governor Patrick were really concerned about the health of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Global Warming and our dependence on foreign oil, they would plant trees not turbines.


Comments: 19
I truly applaud your argument. Trees are an easy and beautiful way to reduce CO2 and add to the quality of life on earth. But do you think that the state of emergency we are in at the moment, Cape Wind AND planting trees would be better? If Cape Wind is being predicted as such an environmental plus, should we not encourage its development AS WELL as planting new trees? We can do both. Planting more trees is something we can all do now. Cape Wind is something that can be done in a more grand scale to help our ailing earth. At least it's worth a try...?
Always,
MiG
This is just false premises after false premises...
#1 ... 10 cents from our electric bill ???
And your source for that damning calculation?
Does the assume unlimited natural gas supply forever as the alternative? nuclear power as the alternative? all power is releative, limited supply sources will FOREVER become more expensive relative to UNLIMITED power sources.
#2. Wind as harmful to the environment... source? with 73000 GIGAWATTS of nameplate power on the planet, please reference ONE oil spill. one. Just pure crap.
Do provide evidence for your charges of false statements.
Passive solar power hurts no one and provides electricity.
There is case after case of fires in the transformers of wind power plants and thus oil spills you can go to National Wind Watch, Industrial Wind Action Group, Country Guardian, Kirby Mountain , Windstop.org, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
I like the way you think. Cape Wind is far from benign as you well know. The taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies committed to private developers for this panacea could be used to purchase many trees. But, the laws and policies direct ratepayer and taxpayer subsidies to developers and the wind industry food chain. "Ah, yes, of course our wind towers work."
"Cape Wind, if built, would create enormous problems yet contribute no meaningful energy to the New England grid. As I have said often, it's symbolic of our continual flirtation with the forces of ignorance and greed, not a more enlightened energy future. As an environmentalist, I'm furious about how anyone concerned about the future of the planet would support such a Rube Goldbergesque pretension."
Jon Boone
If you discuss with your community the options of using green energy, it will bring a whoel new light to surface. I recommend you take a look at this link http://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/home/energychoice/4_greenup_provider.asp
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Matt
http://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/
home/energychoice/4_greenup_provider.asp
I am not a major proponent of wind energy, certainly when solar and hydrogen are options...
http://www.ovonics.com/
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm
...but I have found few compelling reasons to oppose the Cape Wind project. Wind energy is far cleaner and environmentally friendly than oil, natural gas, or coal. The only reason that resonates with me that is of concern for the Cape Wind project is that it affects the migratory patterns of some bird species. If that is the case, then are there other sites more suitable for the wind project?
I read an article in 2000, stating that 100 square miles of efficient solar panels in the SW U.S. could provide the entire nation's electrical need. No one suggested sequestering 100 square miles in the desert (environmentalists would go nuts), but one should consider the potential of these renewable resources - especially when compared to the fossils.
Article:
Solar Power: the Great Untapped Energy Source
http://www.enn.com/arch.html?id=31654
The premise that more trees will shade houses thereby resulting in lower energy bills makes sense (though my home back in MA basically has little visible roof from satellite pictures due to excellent tree cover), but it does not take into account the time it will take for the trees to grow. Judging by the thickness of some trees that we had around, I would venture to guess that those trees were at least 50 years old, probably closer to 70. Now I understand that for trees to provide shade, they don't have to be anywhere near as large as the ones I've grown up with, but needless to say, we are looking at an appreciable time for the trees to grow, which I think is an important distinction given the urgency of the impending energy crisis and global warming. Long term planning is an excellent idea (something that is horribly under-appreciated in modern business and more notably government), but I don't think this would be enough soon enough. Nevertheless, this doesn't seem like an either-or situation anyway as we could plant the trees based on the money we saved from the electric bill. So that could work Cape Wind + Trees.
I am curious if you dislike of wind power in general or just Cape Wind in particular. Perhaps you can clarify this - do you know why the Mass Audubon Society has given preliminary support for the project if birds.
Some of your comments concerning turbines make it seem like they are a disaster waiting to happen, though which I find rather confusing. I won't deny that there are problems, but by comparison to the damage that coal and gas turbine plants, the environmental effects of wind turbines is fairly minimal. When you refer to oil spills, we'd be discussing probably a few hundred of gallons of lubricating oil as opposed to the last two oil spills in the area which put out between three and five orders of magnitude higher spills. The 40,000 gallon spill potential is an argument unique to Cape Wind - the extensive wind farms of the Danes curiously do not have this disasterous 40,000 gallon oil spill problem. I looked at some of the websites that you cited and they seem to be expecting just about everything to go wrong.
So what's my point? We need to reduce energy consumption - trees can help. However we need alternative forms of power - wind power is significantly less destructive to the environment than coal (but what isn't), oil and certainly hydroelectric (Cadillac Desert - excellent book). Solar isn't in the price range of wind (for various reasons). Solar won't work all the time (due to clouds and night) which is bad for an economy running entirely off of one source of energy. We need wind and geothermal in addition to solar to provide a consistent energy supply. We must be pragmatic, if the alternate (renewable) form of energy is cost-effective, it will be implemented faster and the quicker we can get away from coal amongst other fossil fuels the better. And finally, though you didn't say it, I feel it bears saying, hydrogen is not a fuel source - its an energy storage medium akin to battery.
Also, did I have anything worth discussing in that annoyingly large body I posted previously?