July 5, 2020
I have been in and out of politics and government, at every level, for over 40 years. As for political ads, I am not easily shocked. But I was both shocked and saddened to see the full-page ad posted by the Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott. On the Fourth of July weekend, the message appropriated the style and structure of the Declaration of Independence and used it to launch a vicious personal attack on Peter Van Scoyoc, East Hampton’s thoughtful and soft-spoken town supervisor.
The allegations, intended to make the case for the creation of a new village government for Wainscott, were numerous, and either totally false or grossly misrepresented the facts. At this perilous time for our nation when we should all be seeking ways to unite our communities, it is disappointing to see good people of Wainscott manipulated by a handful of super-rich summer residents in order to stop an underground utility cable that would deliver clean, renewable energy to 70,000 South Fork homes and businesses, benefiting us all. And they have added to their list of grievances their opposition to a modest affordable work force housing opportunity that would be located on Route 114 (closer to my home in Northwest Woods than to the mansions on Beach Lane).
Their latest goal is the incorporation of Wainscott as a village with boundaries that run all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the south side of Route 114, and from Division Street in Sag Harbor to Stephen Hand’s Path in East Hampton. Taxes would be increased dramatically on the homes and businesses within these boundaries to pay for the services and administration of a new village.
This small group of self-interested, part-time residents has created a fearsome false narrative on the perils of the South Fork Wind project, and are asking hundreds of Wainscott residents to foot the bill for the Nimby protection of their exclusive enclave. I hope the good people of East Hampton will not be taken in by this shameful campaign.
Former East Hampton
July 6, 2020
Wainscott will be forever changed not by the installation of an underground electric cable to deliver much-needed renewable or by a much-needed mall affordable housing development of new neighbors. It will be forever changed by residents who have decided to sever connections to the community of East Hampton. They want no part in solutions to the needs of the community or responsibility for their contributions to the problems of our town.
However, the deepest tradition of the hamlet of Wainscott is of neighbor helping neighbor, no matter in what part of town help was needed. When the townspeople were beset by a natural or man-made disaster, they did their part to help those in need. They pitched in with all they could. That is the tradition of Wainscott.
Now these town traditions are threatened by an attack-marketing campaign touting creating another layer of government to be controlled by the few. Yes, an incorporated village will be controlled by the few. They say the government positions will be nonsalaried. Ask yourself this question. Who can afford a job with no salary, no benefits, no retirement plan? Do you have the money it takes to campaign against their choices in future village elections? The teams of lawyers and national marketing agencies and engineers that they can afford cost more than yearly salaries for some. Will you forgo your equal representation in town government? Petition: “Signer Beware.”
This campaign began last year with personal attacks on a neighbor whose reputation in this town has been built upon a lifetime of community service and a town leader who has been appointed and elected to your own government for decades. Peter Van Scoyoc is a town leader who refuses to put the power of a few over the needs of the many in his job as supervisor. We have known that for decades. Peter and his family are a part of the fabric of this community, whether you agree with his politics or not. Try as hard as money will buy, they could not redefine Peter, and he won Wainscott by an overwhelming majority in 2019.
The group who have appropriated the name of preservers of what is Wainscott will be the ones who forever change the fundamental core of this entire town. We work together for the good of the many, and not the power of a few.
Good people of Wainscott: It is you who now must preserve the traditions of your community and our town by rejecting the false product you are now being sold.
At It Again
July 6, 2020
Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott, or C.P.W., is at it again. Don’t let these wealthy self-centered people fool you into doing something that will not benefit you.
In the beginning, C.P.W. was all in favor of the South Fork Wind Farm but now it is not. Initially, C.P.W. did not want a cable buried under Beach Lane on its way north to the L.I.R.R. right of way. C.P.W. raised big funds from the wealthy few involved and hired teams of lawyers, engineers, P.R. firms, etc. C.P.W. waged battle on the Article Seven front with the various New York State agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Public Service, Department of Transportation, and Department of State. C.P.W. fought against the East Hampton Town Board, East Hampton Town Trustees, and a variety of other organizations that wanted the best decision for the 70,000 residents who would benefit from the South Fork Wind Farm.
Apparently, C.P.W. sees the handwriting on the wall that few of the 70,000 beneficiaries are on its side. So, C.P.W. upped the ante, and now says that renewable energy is not good, and even if it is, it should be brought in from UpIsland. C.P.W. knows that this would be very expensive since the current infrastructure would need to be replaced to carry the increased load. C.P.W., seeing failure looming, has now hired another law firm to lead the charge to incorporate Wainscott as a village.
C.P.W. makes numerous false allegations against East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc that exist only in the minds of C.P.W. Peter Van Scoyoc has treated this whole process as a fair and thoughtful arbiter of the many issues and concerns around the South Fork Wind Farm. He has been very patient in listening to all sides and giving all sides an opportunity to be heard. Peter Van Scoyoc represents all the residents of East Hampton Town, and C.P.W. is right about one thing: only a small number live in Wainscott. The South Fork Wind Farm will benefit every resident of East Hampton Town, not only with adequate electric power but with cleaner air and water, not to mention bluer skies.
C.P.W. then attacks Peter Van Scoyoc for selling Wainscott’s legacy by burying an electric cable under its roads. I am not sure what legacy they are talking about, but I note there was no complaint or reference to legacy when Peter Van Scoyoc and the East Hampton Town Board provided Suffolk County water to many Wainscott residents. Please note, these water pipes were buried under Wainscott’s roads.
C.P.W. then complains that Peter Van Scoyoc hasn’t reduced the noise sufficiently at East Hampton Airport. C.P.W. knows full well that the airport situation is now controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration, and not by the East Hampton Town Board.
C.P.W. and its wealthy sponsors, who, by the way, are involved in New York City with organizations to help minorities and the disadvantaged, are alleging that Peter Van Scoyoc has failed to control multifamily housing by proposing to build affordable housing on Route 114. The one thing East Hampton needs is affordable housing for its many workers.
C.P.W. is stretching to find any reason to justify incorporating Wainscott. Incorporation will cause taxes to go up in Wainscott and will not give any leverage to Wainscott in the airport noise discussion.
C.P.W. claims its new Wainscott village board will serve without compensation: You get what you pay for.
Wainscott will need to reimburse East Hampton for the millions it spent on the water pipes, and it will need to contract for police, fire, schools, highway maintenance, and all the other village services now provided by the Town of East Hampton.
The South Fork Wind Farm will eliminate the fossil fuel-fired “peaker plants,” which are used in the summer months to meet the increased demand for electricity. These “peaker plants” may get more use now that the pandemic has caused an increase in East Hampton’s population that may not go down in September. These “peaker plants” foul the air and water with CO2, causing air and water pollution to the detriment of humans and fish.
Don’t let these wealthy, self-centered people fool you into doing something that will not benefit you.
JEREMIAH T. MULLIGAN
The New York Offshore Wind Alliance (NYOWA), Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) and the NY League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV), representing a broad and diverse group of environmental, labor and community advocacy organizations, today applauded the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) for releasing the draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind project.
Located in federal waters off the Massachusetts coastline, if approved the project would be the first large-scale offshore wind project in the United States, providing 800 megawatts (MW) of clean and reliable electricity into the Massachusetts grid and setting a strong example for the kind of clean energy project that can help transform our economy and fuel renewable energy development to combat climate change. With the start of the public input period kicking off this Friday, the NYOWA, CCE and NYLCV plan to submit comments to BOEM and participate in virtual public meetings voicing their strong support for this project and encouraging BOEM to approve it a manner that not hinder or unreasonably restrict the responsible development of offshore wind.
“We are at a pivotal point in the development of a new American clean energy industry,” said the New York Offshore Wind Alliance Director Joe Martens, “Advancing the Vineyard Wind project is critical to providing the pathway for the responsible development of offshore wind up and down the east coast. We urge BOEM and its sister federal agencies to complete their review of this project so we can reap the economic, environmental and public health benefits of offshore wind.”
“As the first large scale offshore wind farm in the US, this project is critically important to demonstrate the immense environmental, economic, and community benefits of wind power, not only for Massachusetts but for the entire east coast. The more wind power is advanced the less fossil fuels are needed. We are very hopeful that in the near future we can say that fossil fuels are gone with the wind. As New York, Connecticut, and other states work to meet our ambitious renewable energy standards and offshore wind goals, we urge a quick approval for the Vineyard Wind Project and look forward to seeing these turbines lead the way for US offshore wind,” said Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment.
“Clean energy for all means our approach to renewable energy must be regional,” said New York League of Conservation Voters President Julie Tighe. “Offshore wind is an integral component needed to meet New York’s goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030. The Vineyard Offshore Wind project will set the stage for other developments across the Eastern Seaboard. We need the environmental, public health, and economic benefits that this and other offshore wind projects will bring to our region. We applaud the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management for taking this step and urge the quick completion of its review and approval of the project.”
The Vineyard Wind project would generate enough carbon-free electricity to power some 400,000 homes, generate $2.8 billion in direct private investment and provide 3,600 family-sustaining jobs, all while saving ratepayers of $1.4 billion over the life of the project. Having released the draft SEIS on June 11, the BOEM now plans to hold five virtual public hearings, beginning Friday, June 26th. Following the close of the public comment period on July 27, BOEM will review the comments, finalize the Environmental Impact Statement in November and issue a Record of Decision in December.
About the New York Offshore Wind Alliance: The New York Offshore Wind Alliance (NYOWA) is a diverse coalition of organizations with a shared interest in promoting the responsible development of offshore wind power for New York. NYOWA is a project of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY). http://www.aceny.org/NYOWA
About the Citizens Campaign for the Environment: Citizens Campaign for the Environment is a grassroots environmental organization that works to protect our natural resources and public health. Through extensive education, research, lobbying and public outreach CCE increases citizens influence and participation in important environmental protection campaigns. Through such activism, the public has a stronger voice in the development of public policies and legislative agendas.
About the New York League of Conservation Voters: The New York League of Conservation Voters is the only non-partisan, statewide environmental organization in New York that takes a pragmatic approach to fighting for clean water, healthy air, renewable energy, and open space. For more information, visit http://www.nylcv.org.
How have travel restrictions affected carbon emissions and air quality?
China’s efforts to control the COVID-19 outbreak seem to have curbed energy consumption — and air pollution. Satellite data collected by NASA and the European Space Agency show a sharp reduction in atmospheric levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is produced during fossil fuel combustion, across the country.
Each year, industrial activity typically drops off as businesses and factories close for celebrations of the lunar New Year, which this year began on 25 January. This usually causes a brief dip in levels of NO2. “Normally, the pollution levels pick back up after 7–10 days, but that has not happened this year,” says Fei Liu, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. A preliminary analysis suggests that NO2 pollution after the lunar New Year was around 10–30% lower this year than during the same period in previous years. A similar trend of declining NO2 pollution has also been documented in northern Italy — where cities remain on lockdown — using data from the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-5P satellite.
Ongoing efforts to contain the coronavirus have suppressed China’s industrial activity by 15–40%, according to an analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air in Helsinki. Coal consumption hit a four-year low in February, and oil refining fell by more than one-third. Overall, the centre’s analysis suggests that China’s carbon emissions have dropped by more than 25% as a result of the ongoing efforts to contain the coronavirus.
By Kirk Moore on MARCH 12, 2020 An autonomous undersea glider deployed in December 2019 is helping to map cod spawning habitat around offshore wind energy areas off southern New England. NMFS photo.
A three-year study of cod and other commercial fish species is underway around New England offshore wind energy sites, part of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration effort to better understand how proposed turbine arrays will affect the environment and fisheries.
With universities and other partners, the agency’s National Marine Fisheries Service in December deployed a Slocum electric glider, a type of autonomous underwater vehicle that has proven highly successful in long-term oceanographic studies.
The glider’s instrument payload includes a hydrophone to detect the sounds of whales and of fish spawning, and an acoustic telemetry receiver to pick up signals from fish that have been captured and released with acoustic tags to track their movements.
Now surveying the area around Cox’s Ledge, the glider is covering an area that includes wind developer Ørsted’s planned South Fork wind energy area south of Rhode Island and east of Montauk, N.Y.The survey is covering an area that includes the proposed South Fork Wind Farm south of Rhode Island. BOEM image.
Running on battery power, undersea gliders use a system of water ballast and pumps to slowly climb and dive in the water column, their wings generating lift and forward motion. With their long range and endurance, gliders can survey large areas for weeks at a time, occasionally surfacing to send collected data to vessels or shore by satellite uplink.
For this phase of the study, the acoustic data “will identify location and seasonal occurrence of hotspots for key commercial and federally listed fish species,” according to NOAA.
There is little specific information on Atlantic cod spawning in southern New England waters, according to project lead Sofie Van Parijs, who heads the Passive Acoustics Research Group at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass.
Elsewhere, cod have been are known to form large, dense spawning aggregations in predictable locations relatively close to shore. That can make them vulnerable to disturbances that might affect spawning success, according to NMFS.
“Biological sampling will determine the population’s onset of spawning and track growth, maturity, age structure, and other life history parameters,” Van Parijs said. “This information will help inform the starting date for our glider surveys each year. We will tentatively conduct these surveys from December through March this year and for longer periods in the subsequent two years.”
The study is underway at a critical time for the future of the fledging U.S. offshore wind energy. In August 2019 the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management was compelled to hold up its environmental impact statement for the Vineyard Wind project off Massachusetts, after NMFS insisted more information was needed about potential effects on the marine environment and fisheries.
Even before the agencies came to an impasse over the environmental assessment, fisheries scientists had been warning there needs to be more baseline information about fish populations around proposed wind power sites before construction.
Now BOEM is funding the acoustic surveys. Data for a larger study by the offshore energy planners, including potential cumulative impacts of Vineyard Wind and other projects, is scheduled to start being assembled by mid-June, with a final report scheduled for December 2020.The glider uses water ballast and wings to slowly ‘fly’ underwater over long ranges carrying its instrument package. Christopher McGuire/Nature Conservancy photo.
Ørsted is using the glider detection of endangered whales to guide plans for monitoring and mitigation requirements in the South Fork project, where the company hopes begin construction as early as 2021. Similar mapping will be used for planning the company’s other projects off the East Coast, including Ocean Wind array off southern New Jersey.
For the fisheries aspect of the study, researchers will tag up to 100 spawning cod with acoustic transmitters so the glider can identify spawning area. Other sensors carried on the glider collect detailed environmental data, to help scientists better understand the temperature preferences and habitat use of spawning cod in the region.
A new near real-time telemetry system is operating detect whales and fish, and the public can see data and photos as they come in from the project on a new public web page.
The project team includes experts from the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries; The Nature Conservancy; University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science & Technology; the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office; and Rutgers University.
Following is in response to the recent opinion piece in Newsday.
Last Sunday’s Opinion, winds of change, is clearly an opinion of NIMBY folks in Wainscott (population 700+) who don’t let facts interfere with their story.
Win With Wind’s (formed in 2019) sole purpose is to produce fact-based information regarding the benefits of renewable offshore wind energy. Win With Wind is independent and not affiliated with any wind or energy development company and has no financial ties with any interest group or individual who has a monetary stake in such an enterprise. Win With Wind is non-partisan and does not promote or oppose the candidacy of any individuals for public office at any level. The only former town official on its 4 member board or 7 member steering committee is a former East Hampton Town Supervisor who left office more than 30 years ago.
Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott is a small group with significant money that has hired teams of lawyers, engineers, PR firms, etc., to push alternative landing sites, that are all problematic.
East Hampton locals are concerned about climate change. Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott selfishly don’t want to be inconvenienced.
The South Fork Wind Farm will power 70,000 homes and off-set 300,000 tons of carbon emissions each year.
Jerry Mulligan, WinWithWind Steering Committee
Climate is not a local problem and neither are the consequences such as extreme weather and flooding. There is major flooding in the U.K. currently.
Take a look at the video below!
Some serious flooding in the UK last week!
By Simon Chapman AO, Emeritus Professor, School of Public Health, University of Sydney.
Electrophobia has a long history
• ”more than 30 years after Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb in 1879 and soon afterwards installed a lighting system in a business section of lower Manhattan, barely 10% of American homes were wired. Even after the First World War that percentage rose only to 20%”
• Science, May 10 1889: “A new disease, called photo-electric opthalmia, is described as due to the continual action of the electric light on the eyes. The patient is awakened in the night by severe pain around the eye, accompanied by an excessive secretion of tears.”
Telephones: A cause of ear troubles:
British Medical Journal 1889, Sept 21: pp671-725.
Causes included: “wireless telegraphy, science, steam power, newspapers and the education of women; in other words modern civilization”. Since then the following have been added: televisions, microwave ovens, electric blankets, computer screens, powerlines, WiFi, smart meters, wind turbines.
Growth in mobile phones & the flat-line incidence rate for brain cancer, Australia 1982-2017:
Is there anything not caused by wind turbines?
Lung cancer, skin cancer, haemorrhoids, gaining weight, losing weight, disoriented echidnas, symptoms of anxiety… http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/10501/2/Wind_Disease_List.pdf
Psychogenic illness: “worrying yourself sick”
“Infections … if you fear them, you call them upon you.”- Francis Bacon (1561 –1626)
What is uncontested about WTS (Windturbine syndrome):
•The direct causation hypothesis would predict that all wind farms should affect some people. BUT in stead, a small minority of wind farms have a small minority of residents who claim to be affected.
•The great majority of complaints occur in English-speaking nations, despite the proliferation of wind farms in Europe, China, and many other non-English speaking nations.
•Ontario (English-speaking) has a history of complaints. Quebec (French speaking) next door has had very few complaints
•Wind farms with a history of being targeted by opposition groups are more “affected” by wind turbine syndrome. Just 6 farms of 78 wind farms in Australia have had 73% of all complaints
•Those with negative views about wind farms are more likely to report symptoms than those with positive views
•Those being paid to host turbines very rarely complain, suggesting that the drug “money” may be a powerful preventive
•Claims about only “susceptible” individuals get symptoms (like those who get motion sickness while others don’t) struggle to explain why there are apparently no susceptible people in, for example, all of Western Australia or Tasmania, where there are wind farms but zero records of health complaints
•Claims about “over 40” Australian families having to abandon their infrasound affected homes have never been validated, with those making the claims saying that many of the “windfarm refugees” do not want publicity.
•While some complain of acute effects within minutes of exposure, the first known complaints about wind farms date from 2002. But many wind farms were operational for many years prior to 2002. So why were there no reported acute effects occurring in those years?
•Not a single clinical case report of WTS in any peer reviewed journal
•Experimental subjects randomised to be exposed or not exposed to negative news footage about wind farm harms and then exposed to infrasound and sham infrasound show that prior exposure to anxiety producing messages increases reporting of symptoms, even to sham infrasound.
Complaints to Australia’s National Wind Farm Commissioner in 37 months to Dec 2018: Across 37 months that the office has been open, it has received 283 complaints about wind farms:
•65 (23%) about 11 operational wind farms
•191 (67%) about 51 proposed wind farms
•27 (10%) which did not specify any existing or proposed farm
Read more here: