The most hypocritical Kennedy of all?

By

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. burnishes his reputation for hypocrisy today in the New York Times. The man who on television derided soccer moms for driving SUVs full of kids and equipment to soccer practice (let them eat mass transit?) before being forced to admit under Sean Hannity's persistent questioning that he was about to board a private jet to Florida is now fully in support of wind power — as long as it isn't in his back yard. Or a national park.

Actually, Kennedy lays out a case against wind power. It is noisy and expensive. And offshore wind power installations can be a hazard to navigation. But he ignores the cost to migrating birds and especially fails to note the problem of dust stirred—up by onshore wind farms.

Environmental correctness is the root of his omissions. If greenies oppose wind power and nuclear power, then they are left with precious few alternatives for energy. Kennedy does drag up a vision of a possible (i.e., not real) alternative.

Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences.

If Kennedy were less of a hypocrite, he would offer to eschew riding in private jets and automobiles and motor—powered boats. He should row to and from Martha's Vineyard and use a bicycle to reach his speaking dates and celebrity fundraisers on environmentally sensitive land developed without proper permits. Until such time as deep water technology is supplying America's electricity and replacing all fossil fuels. In other words, forever.

Thomas Lifson  12 16 05

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. burnishes his reputation for hypocrisy today in the New York Times. The man who on television derided soccer moms for driving SUVs full of kids and equipment to soccer practice (let them eat mass transit?) before being forced to admit under Sean Hannity's persistent questioning that he was about to board a private jet to Florida is now fully in support of wind power — as long as it isn't in his back yard. Or a national park.

Actually, Kennedy lays out a case against wind power. It is noisy and expensive. And offshore wind power installations can be a hazard to navigation. But he ignores the cost to migrating birds and especially fails to note the problem of dust stirred—up by onshore wind farms.

Environmental correctness is the root of his omissions. If greenies oppose wind power and nuclear power, then they are left with precious few alternatives for energy. Kennedy does drag up a vision of a possible (i.e., not real) alternative.

Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences.

If Kennedy were less of a hypocrite, he would offer to eschew riding in private jets and automobiles and motor—powered boats. He should row to and from Martha's Vineyard and use a bicycle to reach his speaking dates and celebrity fundraisers on environmentally sensitive land developed without proper permits. Until such time as deep water technology is supplying America's electricity and replacing all fossil fuels. In other words, forever.

Thomas Lifson  12 16 05