Cape Wind officials have spent the better part of six years framing themselves as the good guys - the green saviors of Cape Cod and the Islands. They want you to believe their proposal to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound is a battle between those who want to save the Earth and those who made fortunes despoiling it. ... Last week, Cape Wind appealed the Cape Cod Commission's denial of the developer's plan to run electrical transmission lines from Yarmouth to its proposed industrial site. ...The effort to bypass the Cape Cod Commission - and all home-rule scrutiny - demonstrates the company's arrogant attitude toward local regulators and reveals they are not as interested in the public process as they would have you believe.

It's good policy, of course, to encourage renewable energy, and it's also good policy to protect our state waters. When two goods collide, special care must be taken. Was this amendment preceded by thoughtful discussion, expert testimony or scientific findings? Of course not. It arrived late, wasn't posted, and was then wrapped into a bundle of amendments for a voice vote. ...The Senate ...should reject the House's hasty ocean sanctuary override.

Regulators recently dealt a serious blow to a proposed offshore wind farm in Delaware, criticizing the plan as too financially risky to consumers. ...what's significant about the news from Delaware is that the Public Service Commission used a team of independent consultants to determine the project's costs and their effect on consumers. That's not the case with the Cape Wind project. So far, the developer has refused to provide financial data that would help the public consider the definition of economic viability. As a result, how can the public fully consider the project if it does not have the appropriate economic information on which to judge it? The point at which the project becomes economically viable is critical to the public's consideration of the project as this private venture seeks to use public lands. ..."After six years of 'exhaustive' review of Cape Wind, we are still getting stonewalled," said Mark Forest, Delahunt's chief of staff.

The smart money knew the fix was in two years ago when word started circulating that construction mogul Jay Cashman would move to erect a 120-unit wind farm in Buzzards Bay. ...Apparently Cashman is making things right for his wind farm proposal, too. House Speaker Sal DiMasi has not just admitted but declared that he and Jay Cashman are close personal friends as are their wives. Unable to leave well enough alone, the speaker goes on to say that his personal relationship with Cashman has nothing to do with a nasty little piece of stealth legislation he tucked into an energy bill last week. This stealth amendment would allow construction of alternative energy facilities -- read "wind farms" -- in state ocean sanctuaries where such construction has been strictly forbidden until now.

The surprise that one week before Thanksgiving Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi had thrown a last-minute Mickey into a state energy bill was no surprise at all…just business as usual. Well… maybe not so usual. The obvious beneficiary of this maneuver to allow development of “alternative energy” projects within previously protected state ocean sanctuaries is one Jay Cashman, multi-millionaire construction tycoon and close personal friend of the speaker. Cashman has announced his plans to desecrate Buzzards Bay in the name of renewable profits.

Under the guise of supporting clean energy, members of the Massachusetts House have rushed an amendment through the legislative process that threatens the future of Buzzards Bay. It erases part of the ocean sanctuary protection Massachusetts coastal waters have enjoyed for decades, allowing clean energy development - most notably, wind turbines - to be built with a less stringent public review. In a shady move, Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, the House energy chairman, slipped the measure into an energy bill at the last minute. The bill received only a voice vote, with little debate.

Sunday is National Children's Day - and what better gift to our local heirs than to assure they have plenty of clean power, undiminished shorelines and fresh air 35 years from now. ...Speaking of clean power, this column recently favored stalling the proposed wind farm on Horseshoe Shoals and sliding it to the back burner to await signs of new interest on the nuclear side of the wind/nuclear power equation. Wind turbines and nuclear reactors produce clean power, but there is a wide disparity in the amount each can produce, nuclear reactors achieving the significantly higher and consistent output.

There may be places for wind turbines in the New England hills, but so far developers have been going at the thing willy-nilly, with very little careful study involved. And the effect on the fossil-fuel industry, even with thousands of turbines erected, would be next to nothing. Don't these people have any bridges they want to sell us? Those we could use.

Cape Wind's characterization of Nantucket Sound as a lost environmental cause is a desperate move. But the "dumping grounds" saga is not so dreary a tale as Cape Wind, and their cheerleader group Clean Power Now, would like it to be.

As my public statements make clear, I oppose the Cape Wind project because of the numerous unanswered questions about its impact on local fisheries, navigational safety and the local environment and economy. We are now facing the prospect of a private developer essentially seizing, on a no-bid basis, 25 square miles of public lands and waters. I believe that such a project should not go forward until national standards for off-shore wind farms are in place to protect coastal communities. Even though the Worcester Telegram & Gazette disagrees with me on this issue, it does a disservice to its readers when it ignores the detailed arguments I have made against proceeding with this project.

But advocates often tout renewable energy not for its economics, but because it's virtuous. Many of those who are willing to impose the costs of various environmental schemes on other Americans based on "ideals" suddenly have started looking more closely at the tradeoffs when something they hold dear would have to be sacrificed, like a nice view. Wind energy is never going to be anything but a bit player in meeting the world's energy needs. The Nantucket tempest is useful mainly as a real-world test of whether some of the world's most privileged liberals wear their ideals all the time, or only when it suits them.

The ski industry is the "lifeblood" of northern New England precisely because it draws visitors eager to appreciate the rural splendor - and spend their money. While Cape Wind supporters often make hasty, anecdotal references to wind farm-related tourism in obscure European enclaves, the Cape's fickle, tourist-based economy relies on loyal return visitors - not curious one-timers. Just a small dip in tourist-related spending would result in thousands of lost jobs and millions of lost dollars.

The six-year battle around Cape Wind is clear evidence that this project is deeply flawed. The conflicts that its location in Nantucket Sound presents to our economy, our environment and public safety are irresolvable, and a better site for the project needs to be identified. It is disappointing to see an elected Cape and Islands representative, Matt Patrick, offer such unqualified support for a project that would come at a great cost to the constituents he represents. The time has come to seek a consensus on a site outside of Nantucket Sound where a wind project can be built without damaging such a venerated national attraction. We look to Patrick and others in the Legislature to take up the challenge and find a win-win scenario, so that real progress can be made toward siting a commercial scale offshore wind facility. People may turn a deaf ear to the bickering that characterizes the Cape Wind conflict, but they would welcome a win-win solution to the problem, if only politicians like Rep. Patrick would pave the way.

Our position is steadfast that the locations of wind turbines need careful study, especially in New England with our heavily populated cities and towns. The inherent quality of life and the rights and privileges of the many residents negatively affected by these turbines cannot be ignored in our pursuit of alternative energy. Please visit Windwisefairhaven.com and listen to the Hull residents we visited and you will see that they do not all think their turbines are a great thing as Mr. Sweeney leads you to believe. I advise everyone concerned to please do the research.

As an example of how the system can be abused, Patrick administration officials like to point to the challenge to the Hoosac range wind farm in the Berkshires. State officials believe that area residents who have aesthetic objections to the wind turbines have focused on plans for the service roads to the ridge site as a way to delay or possibly block the whole project. But, whatever the motivations of the residents challenging the plans for the roads, they will cross streams in 10 places and merit an intense review process.

Tiny turbines on short towers may make people feel good about generating "green energy," but they make no sense economically. The fact that the real cost may be hidden or spread out over millions of payers does not change the basic economics.

Cape Wind advocates like to caricature their opponents as a few select landowners who care only about preserving the views of Nantucket Sound. It's a clever and convenient argument, and it's dead wrong. But I have to hand it to them. By focusing on a few seaside landowners, Cape Wind developers have managed to distract the public from the real issues raised by their proposal: Do the public waters belong to all the people, or can they be seized and exploited by private companies for financial gain? Cape Wind has been able to avoid a discussion of why not a single town on the Cape and Islands has stepped forward to support the project, or why the local business community has consistently opposed the project through its local chambers of commerce. It's long past time to take a step back and take a clear-eyed look at the real issues underlying the opposition to the proposal.

Berkshire guidelines provide a blueprint for siting land-based wind turbines.

Time and technology have caught up with Cape Wind. Its advantage of six years ago as a novel proposal is now flattened by the advance of deeper-water wind technology (as well as promised advances in wave and tidal energy generation). By the time Cape Wind could be up and running - by 2011 or 2012 at the earliest - commercial-scale deeper-water projects will be a reality. No matter how you spin it, deeper-water locations are a better alternative to Cape Wind. The winds are stronger, the potential is greater and the risks are significantly lower.