http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/1/13/111914/405/#6

If the urgency of global climate disaster impells the use of wind power over any local objections, why does that same emergency not impell us to simply drop controversial projects like this that delay the build out of wind power for years.

With the time and money wasted arguing and litigating over this one wind farm....how many times the power capacity could have been installed where there are no NIMBYs?

And given a wind farm many times the size of the Cape project, that could have already been up and running on the northern great plains, how much closer would we be to the meaty 10% level of the exponential growth curve that chatacterizes the adoption of a new technology?

Investment on a national scale, instead of getting tied down in endless bickering over one wind farm.  Rather than fighting a diversionary battle, move forward with the real home front effort to win these energy wars.

10s of thousands of 1000 foot scale wind machines are needed to really win this battle. North Dakota,South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota...  all welcome wind energy development.

If this green energy revolution is really that vital, and I believe it is, build capacity out where it is actually wanted first.  Then as that 10% level is approached and passed the momentum created will get projects going in places like Cape Cod, without blunting the leading edge of this important movement.

Only 3000 of these very large wind machines across the northern great plains would get US to the level of 10% of total electric power generated by wind.

And last but not least of the reasons to at least modify the Cape Wind project as RFK jr suggests?  

The time and money spent in endless litigation  would be better spent on moving the whole project further offshore, possibly on floating platforms.  That would open up the entire coast line of the US to offshore wind, wave, and ocean current power generation.

If NIMBYs can't see them from shore, it makes everything so much easier.