In his letter to the editor on Nov. 6, Jeff Wennberg painted a ridiculously benign picture of the impact on the mountains of Ira if construction of about 40 wind turbines takes place there. For instance, Jeff states, "Anyone who has seen a completed wind farm on forested land knows that these projects follow the contours of the terrain." He cites the Lempster wind turbine site as an example. ...The blasting and construction of wide service roads and tower base areas there have changed the contours of the land so drastically that, when I now stand in the area of this project, I have a hard time imagining what the terrain looked like before.

Thank you to Art Kruegger for raising the question about whether big wind turbines built on Vermont's mountaintops will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is a question Vermonters for a Clean Environment has been attempting to answer for seven months, and we are still looking for answers.

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.

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.

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.

Right now, the state is in limbo regarding renewable energy development. As Vermont has seen relatively little development of renewables, the guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable are less codified than in states already hosting thousands of megawatts of wind or solar installations. ...renewable energy is an area where thorough regulation of an industry is valuable, and our state has exactly the regulatory climate and environmental cachet to do the job.

It is also clear that to be green we do not have to destroy our views, our quality of life and the very character of Vermont that makes it special. VCWF's project would require significant deforestation, habitat loss, noise pollution, losses in property values, damage views both day and night, require mountaintop blasting, and decrease quality of life for the area.

The low price of electricity and abundance of it right now are hurting renewables, and there is essentially no market for new generation. He also said he doesn't expect that to change for several years. So why are we willing to obliterate our mountains and fill our night sky with flashing red lights for something we may not even need?

Last week, the New England Governors' Conference raised green fantasy to new heights with the release of its Renewable Energy Blueprint, which said the region "has a significant quantity of untapped renewable resources, on the order of over 10,000 MW combined of on-shore and off-shore wind power potential." Neither the report nor the news articles about it bothered to do the math. At 7 MW, New England would need 1,429 E-126s to tap that potential. Though the turbines likely would be clustered in "farms," that's an average of 238 per state, or more than one for each town in Connecticut. The cost would be $221 billion that the states don't have, though they might get a bulk-purchase discount of a billion or two.

I find it ironic that the mountains chosen by the Rutland Herald to exemplify our state's beauty are the same mountains that will be visually spoiled by the Vermont Community Wind Farm's proposed plan to erect 45 400- to 500-foot wind towers. Along with the turbines come the 36-foot-wide access roads cut into the mountains, the removal of the top of the mountain for footings and the power grid lines.

Why would Vermont Community Wind Farm be willing to spend huge amounts of money on lawyers and experts only to find out that the wind does not blow enough to merit placement of wind towers? Why does the state of Vermont not have any siting standards for wind turbines?

Rutland Herald staff writer Gordon Dritschilo, who was not at the meeting in Ira on Aug. 26, wrote an article entitled "Ira wind supporters begin to stir publicly." From those who were there, it is reasonable to believe that this article was generated not from the facts in attendance, as the author was not there, nor were there that many supporters, but rather from the public relations effort of Jeff Wennberg and Vermont Community Wind Farm.

Plans for a wind farm in Ira and nearby towns received a boost on Wednesday when the Public Service Board approved the installation of wind-measuring towers on Herrick Mountain in Ira and Susie's Peak in Clarendon. Opposition to the project has been strong in Ira and Clarendon, where town officials and other residents have expressed fears that a wind farm would destroy the scenic beauty of their towns without yielding significant electric power or benefits for the environment. ...Vermont Community Wind Farm has been alerted to the sensitivity of residents in the region about potential for damage to the environment and the beauty of the landscape.

It has only been a few months since we first learned of the proposed industrial wind project being considered for the town of Ira and surrounding towns. At first, I really had no opinion about the project since I was totally unfamiliar about wind power. That is, until now.

There is no question that between the number and size of the proposed wind towers in Ira that it does raise questions of aesthetics. Thirty-three industrialized wind turbines between 400 and 500 feet in height in such a small town are an abomination and absurdity. The town and its townspeople do have the right to make an argument of aesthetics. But it is not the primary argument.

Living in Vermont is not like living in the rest of the east coast megalopolis that stretches from Washington, D.C., to Portland, Maine. The dominant identity of our state is found in and of the mountains. The past 40 years of citizen-legislative effort has been to preserve the breathtaking beauty of our home. ...Big wind turbines, and developers trying to force them onto mountaintops, result in uproar everywhere in Vermont.

The town of Ira is enveloped by this massive proposal, even after some recent scaling back by the developer. Opposition in Ira and west Clarendon to this project is extensive, vocal, persistent and persuasive. ...The Vermont Community Wind "Farm" is a bad idea for this already settled, beautiful, unique spot on Earth. Let's hope the developers, Herald editor, and other regional politicians come to this same conclusion and soon.

Most people's understanding of wind turbines, as those gathering signatures for the petition realized, is that of "closed" systems promoted decades ago. You had wind or sun; it collected the energy and stored it in batteries in your basement to be used as needed. Industrial wind turbines are, comparatively speaking, an "open" system whereby the energy is distributed immediately. This sounds wonderful except for one significant issue. The industrial wind turbine process is intermittent.