|Celebrities oppose Martha's Vineyard Windfarm ...||El Guapo|
Aug 12, 2003 9:47 AM
Just wondering what everyones' input would be on this one. It seems to me to be highly hypocritical. We have windfarms dotting the landscape in western Texas. They are actually quite fascinating to see. So many lambaste the use of non-renewable resources (specifically OIL) and tout "clean" energy sources. It seems that these windfarms are an ideal energy source. I wonder if any of these individual celebrities would oppose a 400 ft. windmill erected in the easement of my backyard?
|re: Celebrities oppose Martha's Vineyard Windfarm ...||Alpedhuez55|
Aug 12, 2003 10:37 AM
|I think they are worried about Ted Kennedy crashing his Yacht into them suring one of his drunken boating romps ;) You have to love Massachusetts Liberals. John Kerry paid to have a fire hydrant moved from in front of his house to his neigbors so he could park his SUV closer to his door. It is only natural that he would oppose this project. If anything it could make the area a good breeding ground for fish since the boats will avoid that area.
I have seen a lot of the windfarms in Denmark. They are a great option for energy, especially in sparsely populated areas. THat not in my back yard thing gets annoying. THey complain about foreign oil and will not support a project like this that will make us a little less dependent.
|as do non-celebrities||mohair_chair|
Aug 12, 2003 10:56 AM
|What do celebrities have to do with it? Lots of people are opposed to it, but I guess they don't count because they aren't famous in some way.|
|"Celebrities" stick themselves in the limelight ...||El Guapo|
Aug 12, 2003 11:20 AM
|I don't pretend that the celebrities are the ONLY ones protesting this. One must admit, however, that these celebrities have sought recognition for many other things. So many celebrities make public announcements and podium grandstand so often about how others MUST give and have responsibility to the greater good of humanity. If "Joe Blow" and "Johnny Citizen" grandstanded as much as the celebrities, the headline would have been something like: "Johnny Citizen et al. raise objections to Martha's Vineyard Windfarm." As it stands, celebrities, self-entitled or not, are clearly the stagemen.|
|Not their fault the press singled them out. . .||czardonic|
Aug 12, 2003 12:23 PM
|. . .and played up the "rich and famous" angle. If Johnny Citizen were the only one objecting, there likely wouldn't even be a story. As it stands, this story is less about local reaction to wind farms and more about pandering to people's twisted fascination with celebrities and the glee they get out of pointing out their foibles.
Personally, I agree that wind farms are pretty cool. Besides, I think that anyone who objects to them purely on aesthetic grounds needs a priority check.
|I agree ...||El Guapo|
Aug 12, 2003 1:21 PM
|The media has played up the "rich and famous" angle. That's what they do. Seems to me the press plays up the "rich and famous" angle as much as the "rich and famous" tout it of themselves. Seems they are in a symbiotic relationship of sorts. Anyway, I think windfarms are very cool. I certainly think they look MUCH better than any oil or natural gas drilling rigs. Living in Texas, I can tell you that there are areas of the landscape literally littered with oil and natural gas rigs (both operating and abandoned). They are quite unsightly (look like GIANT ants bobbing for apples). There are several large windfarms on I10 in west Texas. They are really FAR less offensive to look at than oil rigs. Maybe the Cape Wind project could have individual artists paint each windmill in a theme of their choosing. Vineyard residents could appreciate them as art by viewing them through their binoculars, aesthetics being such a concern for them and all.|
|as do non-celebrities||Alpedhuez55|
Aug 12, 2003 11:25 AM
|You are right, there is oposition to this from people who think that it will depreciate their property since they may see something that looks like a pin on the horizon from their weekend home. Some fishermen are complaining as well. I think it is easy to pick on the celebs and pols because it just points out their hypocracy.|
|The well-heeled will always be well-heard. Sad thing is,||RhodyRider|
Aug 12, 2003 12:19 PM
|their noise will probably win the day and an excellent (IMHO) project for a minimal-impact renewable energy source in Nantucket Sound will get flushed. Too bad. It does seem to be the height of NIMBYism and hypocrisy. FWIW, my (future) brother- and sister-in-law live in Falmouth, MA (on the Cape, directly across from the Vineyard) and they are heavily in favor of the wind farm.
Here is an interesting site to check out:
|Their fame is irrelevant, and windfarms are bad neighbors||retro|
Aug 12, 2003 4:13 PM
|Whether they're "celebrities" isn't relevant here, and the claim that "they," meaning famous people, are green is just bogus. Some are, some aren't, just like the rest of us. You don't see Bruce Willis pimping for renewable resources.
More to the point here, windfarms are pretty crappy neighbors. There's constant noise, they ruin the skyline, the older types of windmill take a pretty heavy toll on wildlife (newer ones are better), there may still be some unanswered questions about electromagnetic fields and health--I'm not a bit famous, I AM extremely green, and I don't want one next to me.
|Their (Wind Farms') electromagnetic fields are NOT a health risk||HAL9010|
Aug 13, 2003 12:44 AM
|And they are to be placed out at sea. Ruin the sky line? How so? That is an opinion only.|
|Electromagnetic fields?!!!! Gotta laugh ...||El Guapo|
Aug 13, 2003 7:28 AM
|I mean, seriously ... ELECTROMAGNETIC fields. What a hoot. As for the "heavy toll on wildlife": I got two words for ya' ... Exxon Valdez. If that won't do, how about the recent catastrophic oil spill off the northern coast of Spain. Come to the Texas coast sometime. You gotta love all the tar droplets in the water from the offshore drilling. The "heavy toll on wildlife" arguement is the biggest crock in the world. It's a dam ;) fan that uses wind to turn a turbine that creates electricity. They aren't gonna redirect a river or alter the flow of any streams. They aren't gonna risk spilling chemicals into the seas. The aren't gonna anchor what amount to fuel / air bombs to the ocean floor. Drunk ship captains don't have to transport the energy through environmentally sensitive areas. The environmental impact is so small. If they were soooo concerned about the "wildlife," they wouldn't build ANYTHING (i.e. their cottages and compounds)in wildlife habitats (Ocean or Land). Face it: this aint about the wildlife or preservation of habitat. It is purely NIMBY. Please don't excuse the arrogant attitudes of those that protest projects like these.|
|VERY well said, E.G. (nm)||RhodyRider|
Aug 13, 2003 8:23 AM
|they're gonna be on the water, right?||rufus|
Aug 13, 2003 6:04 AM
|paint them sea and sky colors and from a distance, no one will be able to discern them against the horizon, and everyone's happy.|| |