Some would say that ANY change in the environment in which the farm is in, that isn't a reversion to purely natural processees should be avoided. I like to think I'm more pragmatic than that, or how could I persist hanging here.

And in the case of the offshore wind farm, lets just admit that asthetics is a pile of NIMBY BS hiding in a green jumpsuit. I doubt 90% of greens would rather see a coal stack than a wind farm occluding the grey blah horizon. I think this comes from the fact that the area is where the Right coast city slickers go to indulge the uncomplicated fishing economy town for a whistlestop weekend and looking at a windmill out the window of a Ford Olympus or Chevy Juggernaut would just kill their wine buzz.

I'm sure the local reactophiles will inform me of my grevous error in trying to associate anything like reason with the vile green foe.

So back to the green aquatic canopies:

Does it increase diversity?

Does it destroy or alter a natural eco system?

Will it end up becoming a nuisance?
(picture prolific piles of pungent seaweed decomposing on beaches across the world, yep CO2 and lots of it.)

Then there is the question of how it would be regulated (ooohhhh nooooo!) and who it benefits. Waterworld like turf wars in the doldrums?

THis is not as SomE might say that this would be a case of going to some malignant bureacracy and begging to be scrutinized but rather it is a projection into the future. If shown to be successful, how long till the blue plains start filling and turn into the old west? Maybe never, the market for seaweed might never be able to sustain it on such a level.

Personally, I like the idea. Kinda reminds me of the FMF hexagonal islands.