Culture or Energy? Cape Wind Faces Another Obstacle
Photo Credit Andy S-D
March 1 is a very important day in the world for the future of harvesting wind for energy in the United States. March 1 marks the deadline for the Mashpee Wampanoag of Cape Cod, the Aquinnah Wampanoag of Martha’s Vineyard, and project management company Energy Management to compromise on the construction of a long awaited, long debated wind energy farm in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. Cape Wind, the name of this project consisting of 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet tall, covering approximately 24 square miles offshore of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, has been receiving opposition ever since its conception in 2001.
According to one of the leaders in this opposition, Save Our Sound, a non-profit organization which is working to preserve Nantucket Sound as it is, there are six major reasons why Cape Wind should not be approved: using the land in Nantucket Sound for a “private, for-profit venture” violates the right to public use of the land, the cost of the project would weigh economically on the locals, a project of this size could endanger the diverse species of marine life that live in Nantucket Sound, it looks ugly, it is a danger to air and sea travel, and the initial price of energy will be much higher. Now a new hurdle has emerged in the form of a spiritual space violation. The tribes Mashpee Wampanoag and Aquinnah Wampanoag revealed that to build in Nantucket Sound would be building on ancestral burial grounds. The Wampanoag tribes also believe that their view to the east across Nantucket Sound is a huge part in their identity and traditions. In short, Nantucket Sound is a sacred space to them, rich with archeological, historical, and cultural significance.
This news has overshadowed some of the good that can come from the project. Cape Wind has the potential to provide up to 75 percent of the electricity for Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard. It eliminates the need for fossil fuel usage for electricity and can open up new economic possibilities for tourism and environmental products like the electric car. This project will also pave the road for more clean energy harvesting projects, more wind turbines and hopefully new developments in technology, possibly to harvest energy from water/waves or other sources of renewable energy.
It seems as though compromise is impossible because either way, someone will lose in a huge way. In one way, a historical, dwindling people will lose a huge part of their culture. In another way, a whole population could miss out on the chance to finally do something about the synonymous environmental and energy crisis. What do you think? Culture or Renewable Energy?
To read the original New York Times articles, in order from oldest to newest, click here, here, and here. To hear the proponent’s side, visit the official Cape Wind Website here. And to visit the opposing Save Our Sound, click here. (told you its controversial)
If you want to support Cape Wind, you can sign a petition at Greenpeace until February 12.
Loading ...
i was beginning to feel i may possibly be the sole guy whom thought about this, at the very least at present i acknowledge i’m not ridiculous
i am going to make sure to find out more about a few various articles immediately after i get a tad of caffeine in me, it is very difficult to read without having my coffee, adios for now 
Hi,
I live in Canary Islands (Spain) where (land) wind turbines are rejected by the local community on the basis of being ‘unsightly’. Now aside from the fact that this island is already unsightly with its countless hotels and villages that pollute the landscape to the worst imaginable extent, the local community rejects, just as strongly, any plans to build a nuclear power plant for the archipelago.
I am a 100% green and pro-nature guy (in my mind) and I try to live a relatively green life with a very marginal eco-footprint (no car, no fridge, no house, no air-con, no heating and so on. But I am asking myself (and others) – how can any community that uses that vast amounts of energy block windmill plants or nuclear plants? For as I look around, nobody here saves energy or tries to live a life that would put less stress on the environment.
A place is a burial ground? So what? Are the dead more important than the living ones? Unsightly? The beauty is in the viewer´s eye.
Humbag.
Local communities DO NOT SEE the need to reduce their impact, use less energy, and yet at the same time will block any attempts of trying to make greener energy. There is always an argument against, but never any will to stop using more than the environment can sustainably provide.
A hopeless case, I think, and making local communities more educated about the energy consumption and production would seem the only way from the dead end we are in now. The problem is people do not want to learn, they want to CONSUME.
Bad news.
nick