I am writing to clarify the statement on renewable energy in the Berkshire Eagle on Monday, August 17 attributed to me. ["Wood-burning plan draws ire," Associated Press.] The statement quotes me as saying that burning forests to generate electricity "is not like wind and solar which are truly green and clean."

My position is on wind is qualified by the caveat that it must be properly sited, and industrial scale wind turbines do not belong on public lands or on scenic ridge lines such as those in the Berkshires. Until we have implemented all conservation and efficiency measures, and unless wind is locally owned and controlled, there is no need to destroy the scenic and ecological value of the Berkshires which is so closely tied to the regional tourist and recreational economy.

That is why I vehemently oppose Governor Patrick's "Wind Siting Bill" and his plans to blanket this region with turbines that will be owned by Wall Street which will take profits from our hills out of town. In June 2009, I provided testimony to the Massachusetts legislature on the bill's misguided attempts to clear the path for large scale wind on public lands. North Carolina has moved to protect the Blue Ridge Mountains from industrial scale wind: its Senate has voted overwhelmingly to ban large turbines from the state's scenic ridges. Massachusetts should to do the same.

In my 26 years of practicing environmental law I have come to the conclusion that letting the industrial energy complex ravage our public lands for biomass burners and industrial scale wind turbines is one of the big threats our planet has ever faced.

The writer is an attorney at law.