Going green is good. We're all for Earth-friendly innovations that reduce our energy needs and dependence on foreign oil.

But they must make sense. Benefits must outweigh costs. They must consider potential health risks.

They can't be knee-jerk decisions by elected leaders who vote for them for political gain without due consideration of ramifications.

Ethanol appears to be a case in point. It seems to work only through expensive government subsidies. Higher mandates could cause engine problems, higher ozone and fuel prices, lower vehicle mileage, more expensive groceries and depleted groundwater.

Wind power seems like a better option, but only to a point. Turbines must be sited far enough from homes to protect residents.

How far is that? Union Township, near Evansville, has answers. When EcoEnergy proposed turbines on the township's rural landscape, the town board could have turned to the state's model draft ordinance.

Instead, it wisely appointed a study committee, which found the state's model woefully inadequate. The committee filed an open records request with the state and found that its model apparently lacked any scientific or medical basis.

The study committee spent hundreds of hours before presenting and exhaustive 318-page report and draft ordinance. It recommends placing turbines at least 1,000 feet from property lines and on-half mire from homes, businesses or schools.

The one-half mile rule would prohibit a wind power project in the township, EcoEnergy argues.

But Tom Alisankus, committee chairman, said that distance is a minimum. The committee's research - including information from the World Health Organization, audiologists, physicists, acoustical engineers and doctors - suggested distances up to 1.5 miles.

Read the report's comments from residents who live near turbines around the country, and you wouldn't want one near your backyard.

Sure, technology has improved. Yet, EcoEnergy's proposed 397-foot towers could spread health risks farther than most turbines already in use.

We agree with Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, who says committee members did a good job of exploring background materials and used sound reasoning to base recommendations on the facts. The committee should be an example to state officials for turbines siting standards, says Davis, who wants a legislative council study committee to discuss the issue. That, too, is a good idea.

Whether the Union Town Board approves the committee's proposed ordinance is uncertain. But it deserves serious consideration.

Ultimately, the committee report could have statewide ramifications. If so, rural residents throughout Wisconsin could owe committee members a debt of gratitude.