This article by Susan Kraemer, appearing courtesy of Celsias, was originally posted on CleanTechnica.

An amazingly high percentage of people who live down the Mid-Atlantic Seaboard from New York to Virginia want wind turbines off their coast.

Even if they can be seen from the shoreline, 67 percent support off-shore wind power, according to a new  poll of coastal residents of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia .

If the turbines are out of sight, the level of support goes up to an astounding 82 percent.

A full 25 percent of the population of the US lives in the nine Atlantic states from Massachusetts to North Carolina. The potential is staggering.  So it is very fortunate that so many people in the middle of part of the region with such great potential for wind power feel this way.

Off-shore wind power off the Atlantic could take one third of the US population off the fossil grid.

The off-shore energy potential down all nine Atlantic states is a colossal 330 gigawatts. That is almost twice the total amount the nine states use: 185 gigawatts. The job would take over 160,000 5 MW turbines spaced about a mile apart down the coast. This would be an energy superhighway.

NIMBYism has been the impediment for development of off-shore wind power off the East Coast. This poll certainly had surprising findings, for the middle five of this nine-state wind powerhouse.

Most of the residents polled in the five middle states lived within a block or so of the ocean, three quarters of them are homeowners; about 15 percent with waterfront property. A third of the people are 60 or older.

Fully 90 percent of these coastal dwellers really get out and enjoy beach activities, swimming, walking, crabbing and clamming and they put a higher priority on protecting the coastal environment (76%) than improving the economy (69%), lowering taxes (65%), improving education (64%), or controlling growth (56%)

In March 2009, the governors of the five states in the middle of this wind energy goldmine had initiated an effort to develop an interstate agreement on ocean and coastal management for the Mid-Atlantic region. While NOAA funded a grant for the Urban Coast Institute and Polling Institute at Monmouth University to do the poll, coincidentally, the governors of the five states would need to know if there was any agreement on coastal development.

The Department of the Interior is developing a Comprehensive Energy Plan on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. There is a surprising level of agreement among coastal residents in the five states about what the government should do on a range of issues of interest to coastal dwellers.

While the poll questions covered many coastal issues, what jumped out at me was that these residents really agree on wind power off the Atlantic Seaboard.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Offshore Wind Projects Moving Forward Along U.S. East Coast
• Offshore Wind Turbines Could Cost 30% Less
• U.S. Offshore Wind Could Provide 20 Percent of Electricity by 2030
• Google Catches the Breeze
• New Obama Administration Rule Paves Way for Offshore Wind Power

The big day has arrived for the Waxman-Markey climate bill, expected to go to the floor for a vote in the House today. A quick perusal of the Op-Ed pages this morning adds little to the debate.

NYT and The Boston Globe both offer tepid – and somewhat mournful – endorsements of the legislation, citing its symbolic significance while noting the well-publicized giveaways and leaning heavily on CBO and EPA studies out this week that downplay consumer cost increases as a result of carbon charges. A lot of “the costs of inaction, of clinging to a broken energy policy, will dwarf the costs of acting now” kind of palaver in both. Quite frankly, they are so superficial as to be disappointing — kind of like the bill itself in the minds of many.

The LA Times editorial heats things up a little more, taking a position that corresponds a little more closely with the geographical battle lines that have been drawn in the bill’s mark-up and amendment process. LAT lambastes “the farm lobby” for carving out subsidies and weakening standards to the detriment of the bill, the country and the climate. Not exactly a profile in courage for the newspaper in the country’s second-largest urban area with the most celebrated emission-induced pollution-choked climate to attack farmers. But, you can’t blame them for taking the position. All politics is local, still accusing farmers of being “the shadowy Illuminati who rule Washington,” seems a little over the top.

WSJ – predictably or surprisingly, I’m not sure – goes with a climate change doubter in Kimberley Strassel’s column on the big day…and the best one she could find is an Australian PM. Not too persuasive.

From the same side of the fence, IBD calls Waxman-Markey the largest tax increase in US history and predicts the bill will make “Smoot-Hawley look like a speed bump.” In spite of the many doomsday economic predictions cited in the editorial, it never delivers a tangible look at the Smoot-Hawley comparison, perhaps the most significant unexplored discussion around the bill. What if other countries do not follow suit? What if Copenhagen doesn’t bring the kind of reform that Kyoto could not deliver? Will the US have put itself into a competitive rut because of the real or financial limits that carbon caps place on our economy? Conservatives have adopted a couple of cutesy phrases for the bill’s carbon provision (IBD favors “cap-and-tax,” I like conservative talker Laura Ingraham’s “knee cap our trade” gloss), but with distractions in the form of GOP dalliances from Sanford and Ensign this past week, the Right has not been hitting the trade implications of the bill hard enough, especially not the amendments that — apparently in violation of Nafta and WTO provisions — will add tariffs to imports from nations that do not cap carbon in an effort to prevent “leakage.”

All in all, this morning’s Op-Ed pages do not deliver a lot of surprises. Most analysis breaks down along the same partisan lines that have been drawn in the House debate. I haven’t had the chance to wade through the global editorial coverage of the bill yet — or find some of it amidst Michael Jackson coverage on international news site US pages — but, it is important to remember that the Senate still has to act before anything becomes a concerted US approach.

On that front, the math doesn’t look good. While the House bill faced high political hurdles from agricultural states and groaning industrial areas of the country, in the House those less populous places don’t have the same sway as they do in a Senate body that has two votes for each state. We’ve seen the compromise that the bill required in this setting; when California, Massachusetts, New York and other big states are put on an even playing field with Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana, the Dakotas, the Upper Midwest and the coal heavy Southeast, is it even conceivable that a consensus bill that actually caps carbon can emerge, or will offsets and alternative compliance methods make whatever reform is contemplated little more than illusory?

Related posts:

• Questioning Electric Car Battery Safety
• Honeybees Deployed to Test Air Quality at German Airports
• Know True Costs to Save Real Energy
• Florida University Seeks To Tap into Power of Gulf Stream
• Obama’s Chief Science Advisor Warns Congress Over Carbon Emissions