Opinions
His Wind Energy Siting Reform Act will override 300 years of home rule, displace environmental laws, eliminate longstanding rights of appeal, and launch a process for opening the state's last unspoiled forests and ridgelines to industrial wind development.
The governor has a study estimating that more than half his goal could be met in the Berkshires with 710 industrial wind turbines on public and private land. Those would replace just 5.3 percent of the state's electricity consumption and offset a mere 1.5 percent of our overall carbon footprint at current levels. For those modest benefits, we would pay about $2.7 billion in federal, state, and local subsidies over 20 years. If we subsidized all electricity use in Massachusetts at that rate, we would spend $54 billion during that time on subsidies.
Those turbines will destroy the ridgelines and forests of the Berkshires. The state owns more than 120,000 acres here, purchased by taxpayers and donated by people trusting that it would be held for the quiet enjoyment of the public and the protection of habitat and wildlife disappearing elsewhere. Cutting wide swaths of unspoiled forest for access roads, clear-cutting miles of ridgelines, erecting industrial structures with spinning blades that threaten migrating birds and the last remaining bats - these are irreversible actions with permanent consequences.
The act triggering all these costs will come at a great cost itself: the loss of local control in our communities. If this law passes, a wind developer can enter any town in Massachusetts demanding a permit for one or more wind turbines, and the town would be forced to review the application regardless of its bylaws, knowing that the state would be poised to override its decision and permit the project. And once this act is enacted, what will be the next industry seeking the blanket exemptions granted to the wind industry? Who will willingly accept the rule of law knowing that one powerful industry after another is lobbying to be exempted?
It is tempting to say we must do everything to avert climate disaster. The reality is that, just like a household, we can't afford everything. We must choose thoughtfully among options. What can we do instead of subsidizing 710 industrial wind turbines on our state's last remaining open land to offset 5.3 percent of our electricity use? We know that using energy more efficiently is far cheaper than building new sources of supply. From 2007 to 2008, our state dropped from fourth to seventh place in national rankings on energy efficiency. Clearly, we can do a lot more. And money for such things as replacing light fixtures and weatherizing homes is spent locally, providing local jobs, not enriching an industry that benefits a small group of investors and foreign companies.
The governor's Wind Energy Siting Reform Act will transfer power from towns, legislators, and the courts to the executive branch, giving him and his successors unprecedented power to determine the future landscape and economy of every community. The 5 percent of our state's electricity provided by 710 wind turbines in the Berkshires will not slow the rise of coastal sea levels, but it will mean the irretrievable loss of a globally rare landscape. Be careful, this is your land, too. Assaults on our rights in the Berkshires are on yours in metropolitan Boston, too.
Eleanor Tillinghast is director of Green Berkshires, an environmental advocacy group.
| < prev | next > |