n I’m writing in response to Barbara Durkin’s (“Cape Wind is a bird hazard,” Oct. 25, p. 6) perspective. Durkin claims to be answering a “call for the greater good” by opposing a noble attempt to reduce both Massachusetts’ dependence on fossil fuels and its contributions to global warming, the Cape Wind Project.

She bases her opposition on concerns for, first, “the views [she] cherish[es]” and, second, the lives of local birds.

As a resident of the Cape Cod area myself, I know how lovely the views there are. However, I believe it is completely selfish and irresponsible to reject a plan beneficial to the environment, so that a few wealthy people don’t have to see windmills when they’re gazing out of their mansion windows or sailing their yachts — not to mention the fact that if global warming trends continue, Cape Cod could be under water in the not-too-distant future, views and all.

As for the birds, Durkin fails to consider how much wildlife is destroyed by oil spills and how much biodiversity we stand to lose if global warming — which is fueled in large part by our carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels — continues. Plus, her speculation that the Massachusetts Audubon Society has “financial interest” in Cape Wind and would therefore endorse a massacre of birds is ridiculous.

Durkin has no evidence to support such an accusation. There is no perfect energy source; they all have their costs. However, alternatives to fossil fuels must be found and Durkin is wrong to attack such a promising plan.

Jessica MacLellan

CAS ’09