Leonhard states that the well-meaning hybrid car owners are driving "an expensive symbol that they are worried about our planet, rather than a true solution." The same can be said for industrial wind on Vermont ridgelines. It would be a very expensive symbol, while allowing polluters to continue to pollute elsewhere, slowing the growth in the average air pollution, but not reducing it significantly.

If Catamount will lie on such a basic point as this, why should we believe anything else they say?

My state representative, Lucy Leriche, got back to me about my concern about her vote at the Northeast Kingdom Caucus meeting last week in favor of industrial development of our ridgelines. She clarified her position, which seems to be "trust the Public Service Board." I wrote back to her and clarified mine.

Justifying the addition of towering turbines to Vermont's mountain scenery is a tall order.

Unfortunately, proponents continue to tout wind energy as "the answer" while, in the fashion of "Jeopardy!" contestants, are unable to come up with the correct question.

We don't want anyone to think anyone is trying to flimflam anyone? Right?

It is my fervent hope that our governor and Legislature heed Mr. Bongartz's very helpful suggestions and take control of this locomotive before it takes control of Vermont.

It is unreasonable to expect wind energy to make a meaningful contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, given wind's unreliability and the consequent need to meet increasing power needs with reliable capacity. We would be better served by focusing on clean coal. The technology exists to clean coal today and that would make a meaningful difference. The proliferation of wind turbines will not.

Ultimately, Americans should use energy more efficiently before we try to build our way out of our energy woes.

Illuzzi suggests that instate generation would be cheaper for our manufacturers and that it would save money for ratepayers. Perhaps he hasn’t heard that countries in the world with large wind plants are finding their rates are constantly rising, notably in Denmark and Germany.

This most recent petition joins thousands of others signatures around the state, against the scale of these massive industrial wind projects.

People who are concerned about energy, the environment, or the economy take a serious look at what works and what doesn't. In all three areas, big wind does not work.

Should Vermont proceed on its own now, scar its ridgelines with industrial development and major road construction (as would be required by the Glebe Mountain proposal) in the belief that we would be doing "our part" in the effort to combat global warming? I think not —

Bravo to the northern caucus for speaking out to protect their region. The lawmakers of the Northeast Kingdom, who sometimes feel like outsiders in Montpelier, demanded to be heard.

My suggestion is that our state legislature make a proposal: for the state energy commission to study windmill energy on behalf of the state of Vermont. This study can ascertain the effects, both economic and ecological, of placing larger sized windmill "farms" in a few carefully selected locations, where they can be out of view of the most residents and tourists; to assure both ecological and economic responsibility.

It is not true that wind only blows in Vermont's top 12 poorest towns (Sheffield, Lowell, East Haven, Searsburg ...). Waterbury has ridges!

The consensus among the lawmakers seems to be that wind developers' proposals for wind turbines are moving too quickly to the Public Service Board for approval before communities have a chance to fully explore what they would mean. This is a discussion that is overdue at the Statehouse. Lawmakers should call for a time-out on the permitting of commercial wind farms. The people of Vermont deserve a chance to understand the impact of 400-foot-tall turbines on the ridgelines -- before they are built.

Vermont should study this recent experience of others before bringing permanent change to the ridgelines and undoing decades of policy aimed at protecting fragile high elevation habitats and scenic beauty.

The bottom line is simply that the cost of power from wind farms turns out to be more than twice as expensive as power from conventional sources. You may not see this in your electrical bill but be assured it will be in your tax bill.