There was a very interesting forum held at the West Rutland town hall on Oct. 22. Three speakers presented information that should cause anyone to think very hard about whether an industrial wind "farm" in their community is a good thing. Or whether it's even useful to meet Vermont's renewable energy goals.

While the Galloo Island Wind Farm project seems to be moving slowly along, I am writing on behalf of those who cannot, the birds. Very close to Galloo Island is 43-acre Little Galloo Island. This, along with Gull Island and two small sites on Galloo Island, is designated the "Lake Ontario Bird Conservation Area" by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. These islands are one of the premier colonial waterbird nesting areas in North America. On Little Galloo is found probably the largest colony of ring-billed gulls in North America. Also found there is one of just two confirmed nesting sites in New York state for Caspian terns.

Rural rejecters of wind power aren't bumptious bumpkins, says Adrian Snook. We are asserting our rights as consumers and voters. ...Opinion polls consistently show strong public support for wind power in the UK with around 80% of people expressing support and only 10% opposed. Yet when this translates into local voter reaction to onshore wind development, particularly in England and Wales, support seems to evaporate. It is often replaced by deep anger and opposition. Why is this? I believe there are two reasons.

There are 18 families who live under a mile and downwind of the Mars Hill wind project who have been negatively impacted by these massive turbines. We all want for people to understand what is at stake when turbines move into your community. The 28, GE 1.5 megawatt turbines here in Mars Hill have destroyed a way of life that many have cherished for generations. It is an industrial facility that covers over 3 miles. It has destroyed wildlife habitat, breathtaking views, and property values. It has forever scarred the mountain. It has disturbed streams, ponds and wetlands. Safety issues with ice throw, risks of fire and tower collapse are all things that neighbors have to consider.

The state Public Service Commission recently said that before industrial wind projects could be approved that they had to: 1. Prove that their electricity was not just going to replace an existing source of renewable (i.e. low CO2) energy, and, 2. Verify that available transmission capability was sufficient to carry their anticipated new power. Wow. My first reaction was, "You mean to say that these things haven't been being formally checked out all along?" The admission of that is simply astounding.

Wind power is winning in the Northeast Kingdom, and will continue to win, for a couple of reasons. Energy policy is terribly sensitive to fashion, and wind is currently fashionable. Hydro power used to be fashionable, and therefore good, and easy to push through the permit process. Now it is unfashionable, so while Vermont consumes great quantities of power from Hydro Quebec, we can't count it as renewable energy in our utilities' portfolios. That, of course, is an act of deliberate, politically inspired stupidity.

Barbara Ashbee distributed this letter to all media in Ontario Canada. Ms. Ashbee and her family abandoned their home due to wind turbine noise and other impacts which have harmed their health and quality of life.

It's clear that global warming threatens ecosystems and that we need to take action to reduce carbon emissions if we hope to maintain the planet's biodiversity. But one potential solution carries threats of its own that need to be mitigated. ...Although wind development is far less destructive than many types of energy production, such as mountaintop-removal coal mining, wind power's threats to wildlife are not inconsequential. Regions with sustained high winds frequently overlap prime bird habitat, including the sagebrush and grasslands that sustain declining populations of sage grouse and prairie chickens. In addition to habitat issues, bird collisions with wind turbines are mounting.

Meridian Energy, the state-owned energy company, wants to build a wind farm in front of our vineyard, atop a beautiful range known for centuries as Nga Waka a Kupe - the canoes of Kupe. ...But this won't just affect our front yard. With 45 turbines twice as high as the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and blades twice as large as the Westpac Stadium, sited 8km from the town square, this could be the end of Martinborough as we know and love it. The tourism industry our economy depends on - wine festivals, outdoor concerts, homestays, weddings, cycling - will they continue with noise from these turbines?

Too clever for his own good? That might be the case for Energy Minister George Smitherman, who aims to turn Ontario into a renewable-energy superpower and create thousands of green-collar jobs. Both are great ideas. But a deal being made on the sidelines could undo much of what Smitherman and the Liberal government are trying to accomplish.

But if US wind turbine manufacturers want another foreign renewables contingent to worry about, there's always the Europeans. A study by non-profit group the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 84 per cent of the $1.05bn handed out by the US government since September 1 has gone to foreign companies - mostly European. It's not an overwhelmingly surprising finding given that the US subsidiary of Spain's Iberdrola Renovables - the biggest wind farm operator in the world - was also the biggest recipient of the funds. And big European turbine manufacturers such as Vestas have been quite clear that they see the US as their big growth market.

Elected town officials of Orangeville, at a special Town Board meeting Sept. 23, set aside the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orangeville, in deference to some of their own personal financial agendas in matters pertaining to zoning laws when they pushed through a proposed resolution for wind energy. ...Orangeville Supervisor Susan May, councilmen Andrew Flint, James Herman and Hans Boxler Jr. voted unanimously for 700-foot setbacks of mammoth 450-foot industrial turbines from Orangeville taxpayers' property lines (500 feet from public roads), leaving no doubt that there was little regard for the health, safety and welfare of the people who voted them into office.

When industries look for government subsidies for money-losing propositions, a common business model these days, one of the most important strategic elements is to make sure you have a well-oiled public relations machine to keep the facts from getting in the way. Voters don't like to back money-losers, which means keeping them steadily misinformed or at least confused. Renewable energy industries - wind, solar, biomass, human treadmills - have a particularly tough job.

Bordering councils have seen our rural Fenland landscape destroyed and cluttered with this heavy and useless industry and politely declare 'no thanks'. This 'green window dressing' is causing extensive environmental damage to the British countryside and everything within it, very soon I will expose how our local wildlife environment has been abused and disrupted by those seeking the rewards of political and financial gratification.

In AWEA's blog post, they describe a national Renewable Electricity Standard as "a free-market" program. That is not accurate. In free markets, people are free to choose. A Renewable Electricity Standard forces people to buy wind, solar, and other government-approved energy sources. It is a mandate. Forcing someone to buy your product is not a free-market program by any definition. Contrary to AWEA's assertion that a Renewable Electricity Standard would lower energy prices, common sense and real-world evidence suggest otherwise.

It's never pretty watching people's rights getting trampled by a government caught up in the latest fad, but it's happening across Ontario. The victims are citizens living mainly in rural communities. Their concerns about the possible adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines are being rolled over by Premier Dalton McGuinty. We should all pay attention because our rights could be next.

I just read the proposal in front of the Public Utilities Commission. Deepwater's "cheap" electricity is going to cost "the grid" 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to start and go to 56 cents. I don't know what this will translate to on a Block Island Power Company bill, but if you include BIPCo's fee, plus a transmission fee, plus the cost of the $50 million dollar cable to support the 30-megawatt power plant, I'm willing to bet none of us are going to like it.

Climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades. Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies designed to encourage wind, solar, and other -renewable-energy markets. The goals are worthy: reduce emissions, promote new sources of energy, and help create jobs in a growing industry. Yet this epic effort of lawmaking and spending has, naturally, also created an epic scramble for subsidies and regulatory favors. Witness the 1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emission permits by 2012). Government has often had a hand in jump--starting a new -industry-both the computer chip and the Internet got their start in American defense research. But it's hard to think of any non-military industry that has been so completely and utterly driven by regulation and subsidies from the start.

It was only a few years ago that habitat loss was front and center among causes for concern about the future well-being of the American ecological landscape. Not much has changed to allay this concern; sprawling development continues, and the alteration and loss of natural habitat is largely unchecked. What has changed is the focus of many mainstream environmental organizations. Concerns about the projected future effects of climate change have taken precedence over the immediate and observable effects of habitat loss.

Short-term thinking on energy is going to cause some long-term problems Ask Paul Edmonds, vice president of National Semiconductor in South Portland. In August, he wrote in the Portland Press Herald, "An inefficient regulatory system and lack of long-term energy strategy are conspiring against Maine citizens and businesses." I was intrigued. So I called him. He told me, "High electricity costs are a threat to manufacturing competitiveness in Maine."