Yapping Democrats....

One of the American Democrats new themes these days is energy security. In other words, getting the United States to be less dependent on foreign oil. This of course makes lots of sense and with the price of oil so high, American ingenuity and industriousness are finding new ways to conserve energy and find new renewable sources.

Success, it seems to me for these guys, is control of, not only the -- the strategic positioning, but the oil. So, success for me would say, "we don't need your lousy oil." We could start -- we could put -- we can run this whole country off renewable energy, right this minute.

Of course, this Democratic Congressmen from California is getting a little crazy saying that we could run the country "right now" with renewable resources. But it a laudable and pursuable goal.

However, NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] prevails, even amongst these same Democrats and some famous left wing ones at that. Let's have a look at the promise of wind power...

The industry added about 2,500 megawatts of wind power last year, a record 35 percent increase, according to the American Wind Energy Association, an industry trade group. The country's wind capacity is more than 9,200 megawatts in 30 states, enough for 2.4 million average U.S homes.

Wind power still makes up less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity, but experts expect wind to generate at least 5 percent by 2020.

Of course there are issues with where to put these giant turbines. In China, this has caused problems where people protesting the seizure of their property for wind farms were shot by police. But in the US, it has caused other problems...

The environmental debate has intensified as the first offshore projects are proposed in popular tourist areas, such as Cape Cod, Long Island, N.Y., and the New Jersey shore. Critics, including a member of the influential Kennedy family, worry that some projects could harm national treasures.

"All of a sudden you're transferring an asset used by 5 million people into the hands of private industrial speculators," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmentalist who has objected to the Cape Cod proposal. "If you're giving away public rights, you ought to make sure the public benefits from this transfer, that the costs do not exceed the benefits."

Kennedy's stance has put him at odds with the environmental organization Greenpeace, which last August sent boats to interrupt a visit by Kennedy. Supporters say the project would meet the region's energy needs in an environmentally friendly way.

Uber-environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr. is against these wind towers because some are planned to be located offshore Cape Cod, near the fabled family retreat. The proposed towers, actually 6 miles offshore from Hyannis, Massachusetts should be more of a concern for wealthy yachters than spoil the view of landlubbers. So maybe these towers, really tiny specks on the horizon, concern him since private enterprise will own and operate them? Or really because it may disturb the "views" of his wealthy privileged family and there wealthy and privileged neighbors? And to call windfarmers speculators is not economically justified, in my humble opinion, just a word of convenience for Kennedy to denigrate the free-hand of the market place. Most wind power is sold off under long-term contracts so that investors can use these contracts to finance the projects.

The wind power added this year will offset the emission of approximately 7 billion pounds of carbon dioxide, equivalent to keeping nearly 500,000 SUVs off the road, the association said.

I have viewed some of Kennedy's politically motivated environmental positioning as just pure crass politicizing and he has every right to do so. But Kennedy's opposition to wind farms is just plain idiotic and pathetic.

Of course, Democrats are also opposed to nuclear power I guess becasue it isn;t renewable and not clean? Doesn;t produce greenhoouse gasses, you know...

2004 August 20 note: There has just arisen a significant difference in policy between Bush and Kerry. In a Nevada speech, pandering to Nevada's bipartisan NIMBY opposition to nuclear waste storage site in Nevada, Kerry has promised that the Nevada site will be abandoned if he becomes President. This site has passed all the scientific criteria and is now in a Federal Court squabble about the Environmental impact statement. A judge has ruled that 10,000 years in the study is inadequate and 100,000 years must be studied.

So I wonder just what renewable resources that this congressman from California was talking about.