Frank Maisano's job, for which he is well-paid, is to trick communities and local officials into believing that erecting hundreds of wind turbines throughout Garrett County will somehow make life better here. It is a job repeatedly performed by him and other industry-financed promoters in rural areas throughout the country. ...My job, for which I am paid nothing and have no financial interest, is to attempt to educate people concerning the reality of this fundamentally exploitative business and the consequences of succumbing to its false promises.

Illegal, unhealthful noise and devaluations of nearby property are only two of the many documented adverse consequences that flow out from massive wind installations. The Criterion project in particular will also devastate hundreds of acres of sensitive habitat, putting at risk much wildlife, some species of which are extremely vulnerable. The county commissioners endorsed this project last month without investigating what it would do to people and property here; this is a chilling take of how avarice overwhelms the common good. Pimping these beautiful mountains away for unsecured revenues represents values I neither understand nor respect.

Royal Dutch Shell took a lot of flak when it pulled out of the huge "London Array" offshore wind farm in the U.K. last week. The prevailing explanation for the withdrawal? Higher oil prices make old-fashioned energy a more attractive investment than still-immature renewable energy. Perhaps there's a less-conspiratorial explanation. Maybe offshore wind power just isn't up to snuff yet. Denmark's Vestas, the world's biggest wind-turbine maker, today said Europe should curb its enthusiasm for massive offshore wind farms, and focus on regular onshore wind power.

Gengrowth wind turbines are to be situated in a great monotonous line along the historic Talbot Trail, through Palmyra, Morpeth, and stretching out along the shores of Lake Erie. It is hard to imagine that in 2008, precious land bordering beautiful natural beaches and cliffs of Lake Erie will be dotted with giant wind turbines sweeping the countryside. This is only one of many lines and grids that will weave through, connect, and wind around heritage and cultural landmarks while fencing in small towns and fencing out the natural beauty of rural Chatham-Kent. ...Like Quixote, one cannot help but feel an unsettling and disturbing ill wind brewing. ...Hopefully, there are a few Don Quixotes left. It is important and necessary to fight against the smiling giants of profit and opportunity whose false promises of economic benefits are, in this opinion, full of hot air and come at a great expense. It is time to demand that both the provincial and municipal governments preserve the heritage, and unique cultural and natural assets of Chatham-Kent. It is time to "tilt at windmills."

The Environmental Policy Act signed into law in 2005 called upon the secretary of the interior to promulgate regulations by May 5, 2006 to site offshore renewable energy projects. And still there is no regulatory process under which the Cape Wind precedent-setting proposal for alternative use of the submerged public land, Nantucket Sound, is being reviewed. Therefore, the reviewing agencies are incapable of providing our/their informed consent regarding the Cape Wind application ...The Cape Wind project is being reviewed within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ...Absent standards and rules that will apply to the Cape Wind permit review, the public and agencies are denied meaningful participation in this NEPA process.

Of the world energy demand 87 percent comes from fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal. This fraction has not changed much since the 1970's and the first "energy crisis" while energy demand has more than doubled. By almost everybody's estimates by the year 2030, the total world demand will increase by 50 percent and oil, gas and coal will still provide 87 percent of the world's energy. ...We use them because they are the easiest, most flexible, most reliable and most efficient forms of energy. ...I have no aversion to wind or solar. I love the sun, I am Greek. But they are eminently unreliable and, even in their best case, without government subsidies, they make $200 to $2000 oil still attractive. It is that simple.

Governor Corzine's energy master plan for New Jersey calls for a reduction of 20 percent in energy consumption by 2020. It also proposes that by that same year, just 12 years hence, 22.5 percent of the state's electricity should come from renewable sources, chiefly wind and solar, up from 2 percent now. Further, New Jersey emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced by 20 percent. These goals are remarkable. Energy use has been growing steadily. Nearly half the state's power plants are 30 years old or older. Some will have to be replaced, sooner or later. ...Some interesting things are happening, but as for the 2020 goals set by Corzine, he, and we, had better not get our hopes up.

Not since President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed at the White House has there been as much hype for renewable energy sources as there is now. Congress once again is pushing for passage of legislation mandating a "renewable portfolio." South Carolina is wisely letting the free market determine whether renewables will catch on. But 25 states have adopted renewable energy requirements, committing nearly half of our country's population to obtaining as much as 25 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other "green" sources by 2020. Increasing our use of renewable energy is a worthwhile goal. But if we allow the heavy hand of government to mandate its use, we're setting solar and wind energy up to fail. ...Wind power has appeal not because it's clean, but because tax breaks and subsidies for wind are now so valuable for wind-farm owners.

Last week the old feeder drove through NW Iowa. My route used to offer pleasant scenery most of the way from the feedlot to my destination. I get off of I-29 at Onawa and take the county blacktops to Arnolds Park. For the last 10 years, a growing part of the drive has been through a wind farm. Its like driving through a hellish, whirling machine. Almost everyone agrees that these monstrosities are hideous eyesores. Nobody with any sense of the rural aesthetic wants them anywhere near where they live. ...Now the scenic Iowa roads between Galva and Peterson are studded with the ugly contraptions as far as the eye can see. Perhaps portending worse to come.

Wind energy is not a local issue. Small towns and schools don't have the high-priced lawyers and experts to evaluate a project or fight on their behalf when payment in lieu of taxes agreements are inked. Nor do they have jurisdiction on projects that might be just over the town or district line. Before New York began its push for renewable energy, it should have funded objective research into the proper siting of wind towers. Surely somewhere between 1,000 feet and 1 1/2 miles is a setback that most people and wind energy companies can live with. ...State lawmakers manage to issue a press release on every headline of the day, from sex offender registries to a proposal for a gas-tax holiday. They are strangely silent on the gradual, haphazard implementation of wind utilities across the state. The time of leadership has come and nearly gone.

The foreign-owned companies that are rushing to put 406-foot industrial wind turbines in our beautiful Thousand Islands area are not thinking about our safety or welfare or even about helping the environment. They just want to line their pockets with your tax dollars. The industrial wind turbines are subsidized with your federal and state taxes as well as surcharges collected from your electric bill. They will not reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil since we do not use much oil to make electricity. ...The towns of Clayton and Orleans said that it's OK to put a 406-foot industrial wind turbine 500 feet from your property line or 1,250 feet from your home. That is too close for our health and safety.

I took a run this weekend over to Ellenburg and Clinton, N.Y., to see 121 wind turbines at work. These are the 400-foot behemoths installed over the fall and winter by Noble Environmental Power. They're the first of nearly 400 towers planned for this windy stretch of scrub and farmland just south of the Canadian border. We've been arguing about wind energy in Vermont for more than five years now. ... Only two conclusions were inescapable: First, a wind project undoubtedly transforms the landscape, for better or worse. Second, seeing a wind "farm" at work won't settle the argument over "better or worse."

So the wind power industry and consultants hired by the government tell us Ontario's noise rules for wind farms are 'very good' and 'strike a balance'. ...While the MOE studies the problem, Ontario's lax noise rules allow the government to let contracts worth $15 billion for another 3,000 wind turbines to be squeezed into populated southern Ontario. As the wind farm developers follow the yellow brick road to Oz, families caught up in the developments will be exposed to noise pollution levels two times higher than what the World Health Organization says are safe.

Roxbury Selectman Mark Touchette suggested visiting Mars Hill. My husband and I chose a neutral area 400 miles away. The 220-foot windmill towers we visited were overwhelming. It was a reality check. The swooshing and clanging of those industrial machines as they rotated were alarming. There was a persistent humming, strobe light-like and flickering shadows swirling around the cleared land that surrounded each turbine. ... Rob Gardiner of Independence Wind is now going door-to-door peddling his goods, trying to sway residents into his pockets of this big business, money-making venture.

Byron is doing the right thing about wind turbines, by wondering whether it wants to have them at all. It is a discussion more towns in Maine should start. ... Communities that wish to encourage wind power projects should say so. Those that will oppose one should say so too. There's little equity in Maine, which now has expedited reviews of wind projects for all its organized towns, to have more site-by-site fights. ...The irony is, by stopping a wind project, Byron is now showing the right way to approach one.

First of all, the Board of County Commissioners will not "unlawfully seize property - period. ...Perhaps more important to an understanding of this issue is the reluctance that the county has had in using the power even for its own uses. It is important to note that it has been much more frequent that commissioners have directed staff to look for alternatives that would protect the property rights of the residents of Garrett County. The limited use speaks to this and represents those circumstances where there was no other option. With all of that said, and realizing that this is a power that the commissioners have, we have no expectation that it would ever be used.

I think the first letter written by state Division of Marine Fisheries director Paul Diodati regarding Cape Wind, dated Feb. 20, that recaps many of the fishing industry's concerns, should be given more weight than the second version. I think observation of the president of Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership, Ed Barrett, regarding the long arm of Deval is spot-on, as Patrick has demonstrated a propensity to change laws if necessary to help his friends overcome obstacles. Deval raised eyebrows when he recommended changes to Chapter 91 to accommodate Cape Wind.

Who decided they could put this industrial wind project in a residential/agricultural area? We are taxed under a residential rate, but live in an agricultural area. How can the wind company propose measuring distances for safety from noise from the corner of our residence instead of the property line? Nowhere else in any zoning laws does this exception apply. Who gave them that right to use our backyard as their buffer zone? ...The cost of ``free'' wind doesn't figure into it the astronomical cost to upgrade the transmission lines. The utilities passed that cost on to us! We ask that the board study the issues objectively and find their own answers through independent research. There are better choices instead of spending upwards of $200 million for this project. The money could be better spent on education.

Self-styled "green" leaders across the country face a conundrum over wind power: Do they alienate part of their constituency by leveling pristine forests to build wind farms, or irritate the other part by rejecting a promising source of renewable energy? When Gov. Martin O'Malley faced that choice in April , he opted for the latter, and in no uncertain terms. ...But wind energy supporters said that while many Americans support the concept of wind farms, nobody wants them built in their backyards.

I have been told that Viking Energy intend to instigate a planning process in September. Environmental impact assessments have not yet been published and may not be (and need not be) until the day that planning application is submitted. This gives little or no time for public debate or consultations on these. This also says to me that VE have already made up their mind that the environmental consequences of the wind farm and cable are acceptable. Once the planning application is submitted, and the planning process underway, promises that "if the people of Shetland don't want this it won't go ahead" are empty because the final decision is taken in Edinburgh, not Shetland. I guess that VE's response to this will be that they have a mandate to instigate this process - I bet they won't test this in a referendum.