Are we putting at risk a perfectly viable, and potentially lucrative business to accommodate something which is still the subject of intense debate? That is the question being raised by Northumberland Tourism - the agency set up this year to promote the county's visitor industry. And it is a perfectly valid one.

If supervisors believe a tourist trail can be successful despite an wind plant along its path, they surely must be confident they can make that argument in court, or during the SCC’s review. Delaying a decision simply because of the fear it will be used against them makes little sense on the face of it. The board should take up this request again soon, before Highland earns a reputation for being closed to regional efforts. This county cannot afford to work alone and miss these kinds of opportunities.

If we are to spurn the nuclear option, or indeed if we are to embrace it, we must do so only once we have taken all aspects into account. Rigour and honesty is required, too. We must accept the relevance of the subsidies that wind power receives, and the low carbon nature of nuclear energy.

The state shouldn't allow companies to build hundreds of windmills off the coast without first studying their effects on tourism, anglers and wildlife. There's no bigger part of New Jersey's multi-billion dollar tourism industry than the shore.

If Scotland really wants to be the best small country in an increasingly competitive world, we have to present ourselves professionally and use every asset we have to grab what is going. Alternatively, we can sit back and watch developments like the Trump project go to England, France or Spain. Then will we be happy?

Ipswich should be focusing on how to get the average kwh cost down to 10 cents or less, not wasting time on some politically correct marginal trifle that will do nothing to achieve electric rate relief.

If wind energy really is the energy of the future, as the developers claim, it must prove itself in the market without government subsidies. This has not yet happened anywhere; the projections are all based on artificial models with hidden costs -- costs for you and me, the taxpayers and consumers.

Does he really think tourists will come to Cumbria to look at “A Host of Golden Wind Turbines"?

In my opinion as a realtor and architect, the true asset in Monroe County is to develop a recreational industry. With its location close to Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Wisconsin Dells, and the Mississippi River, and with the beautiful bluffs, ridges, and picturesque valleys inhabited by Amish settlements, this area has the potential to attract weekend tourists and vacationers, bringing business and employment to thousands of county residents and enterprises. This potential will be lost by the construction of wind turbines, which will pollute the landscape with towers and power lines.

Take us up on this offer and we believe you will come to understand why most Highlanders have reached the conclusion this proposal is more about profit for a very few people at taxpayers’ expense than a viable source of new energy, and that it will destroy much more than the views we now enjoy. It will lead to the destruction of our natural heritage which, as outlined in our comprehensive land use plans, is the foundation of our promising future.

I feel that your paper's endorsement of the wind project is based upon an incomplete understanding of its impact upon the western mountains' nature-based tourism.

We hope other Virginia localities watching these proceedings will profit from learning that currently unreliable wind power is green only for those who are allowed to siphon off government money at taxpayers’ expense and that as this high-cost energy is fed back into the grid, it will result in higher, not lower, electric bills for users. And we hope the cumulative anguish of Highlanders expressed during the hearings will give other decision-makers pause when they consider the real costs of wrongly-sited wind power.

Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of renewable-energy-for-profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a "back yard." They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. The issue at stake is preservation, and the face of environmentalism should be one of traditional conservation, not a heedlessly applied new orthodoxy. As a nation we need cleaner energy sources, but despoiling the scenic ridgelines in Vermont's premier recreational destination for minimal public benefit is misguided and irresponsible.

If we allow these wind turbines to come it is very possible that the economic health of Vermont as we know it today will be irreversibly damaged. Vermont will no longer be known as the last bastion of rugged beauty in the United States.

This thing smells of resources from the Gaspé being used with the majority of profits heading out of the region at the speed of, in this case, electricity. It happened with the fish. It happened with the copper. It happened with the pulp and paper. Now it will happen with the wind.

Given the nature of our students and their families, the implementation of an industrial wind turbine "farm" surrounding our school would spell our school's death. Our school simply cannot operate surrounded by 400-foot industrial wind towers with flashing red lights at night and steady noise 24 hours a day.

Challenging incorrect “popular wisdom” is difficult but, in this case, well worth the effort!

Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a "free" source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary--wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources.

We cannot lose sight of Vermont's distinctive place in the world with its open spaces and gorgeous vistas. It is up to us to continue the legacy. Real jobs, real lives depend on it.

Everyone probably agrees with the fundamental goal of the legislation -- to protect Vermont's fragile environment by increasing the use of clean energy. But before lawmakers rush into mandates, they must ensure the measure doesn't inadvertently harm the economy or the landscape.