Potentially minimal damage to marine life vs. killing the planet burning coal or damning rivers. Seems like a no brainer to me. So a few sea gulls get turned into shark food? Is that seriously the opposition to this? It's not like the waters off Massachusetts are a mecca for scuba divers or bird watchers is it? It's not going to effect off shore long lining for sword fish or commercial lobstering so what's the issue?
Are people actually suggesting that the lesser of two evils here is to continue to rely on coal?
Goddamn right wing will oppose anything new in favor of the old. It's their party line.
Dude, I'd see you on the river but I'm hardly ever out there.