Of the proposals under consideration, at least one would be off the coast of Ocean County, 18 miles from Long Beach Island. Although a study prepared for the BPU noted the impact of wind farms off the Jersey coast on the fishing and tourism industries would be temporary and relatively minimal, it indicated there was far greater sensitivity to the visual impact of wind farms in Ocean County than in Cape May and Atlantic counties. The BPU should take that into account. ...The projected loss of tourism revenue would drop off dramatically if wind farms were located 6 miles or more off the coast.

Add to this the damage to the tourism industry, and the whole concept of ranks of wind turbines across the roof and shores of Wales, producing intermittently and unpredictably amounts of electricity far less than developers lead us to expect, seems utterly foolish, especially when there are much less damaging ways to produce electricity (in which Wales is self-sufficient, in any case).

The ski industry is the "lifeblood" of northern New England precisely because it draws visitors eager to appreciate the rural splendor - and spend their money. While Cape Wind supporters often make hasty, anecdotal references to wind farm-related tourism in obscure European enclaves, the Cape's fickle, tourist-based economy relies on loyal return visitors - not curious one-timers. Just a small dip in tourist-related spending would result in thousands of lost jobs and millions of lost dollars.

As a tourist who visits the area, I notice what is transparent to most locals, and for me the skyline of Fairhaven is priceless. If the citizens of Fairhaven allow the wind power project to be built at the current proposed location, I believe you will be making a terrible mistake. The town may gain some money in taxes and offset some electrical energy costs, but it will not offset the loss in green space and, more importantly, the beauty of Fairhaven's historic charm.

In the Williams/Whitcomb world of tabloid journalism, there is no room for thoughtful discussion, for weighing costs against benefits, for understanding that self-interest is at work on both sides of the issue or for any kind of honest discussion. Such thoughts would get in the way of the facile thinking and cynical blather that fills their book and that is now commonplace on TV, radio and the Internet. Do you find yourself bored now that Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell are off the air? Does the Internet no longer meet your need for trash talk? Then read this book. You won't learn anything substantive from it, but it'll be great entertainment.

Wind power would seem to be a necessary component of any strategy by North Carolina to increase the amount of energy produced here from alternative sources. Put simply, there’s plenty of wind in these parts. The downside is that sections of the state where wind currents are strongest and most consistent also happen to be ones that are heavily dependent on tourism and where there is an understandable priority on protecting natural views. That holds for the coast, and it holds for the mountains. The issue of whether and how to take advantage of mountain winds now is before the state Utilities Commission. The commission yesterday held a hearing focused on a proposed Ashe County “wind farm” — 25 or so giant turbines that would be built near Creston in the state’s far northwest. It is easy to see why the project has stirred local opposition in an area where vacation-home development is an economic mainstay.

From Barton, Vermont, to the German border with Denmark and from the shores of Lake Huron, to the Romney Marches of southern England, wind power advocates are fighting crosswinds from local residents. In Barton in mid-January, a referendum overwhelmingly rejected the wind power turbines that were planned near this upper Vermont community. ...In Germany, where one-third of the world's current wind power is generated, doubters have provoked a loud debate. The company that owns the grid that includes nearly half the wind-farms in Germany reported its wind farms generated only 11 percent of their capacity. The company said the winds vary so much the wind farm had to be backed 80 percent by the conventional power grid.

Cumbria already has 11 windfarms and up to 10 more are earmarked by 2015, more than anywhere else in the north west. Given the new regulations, which require objectors to make their case within just 120 days, it becomes ever more vital for robust planning guidance to be in place to ensure the county’s six district councils don’t approve wind farms which would undermine Cumbria’s landscape-dependent tourism.

Trevor Koronka is right about the threat to tourism which, like it or not, is now the economic backbone of most rural areas (Letters, September 21).

Protesters share our concern that the case for wind power is unproven - and that alone should stop the march of turbines across Cumbria - but the overriding issue, which has caused objectors to write in from all over the country, is that these windmills will be an eyesore in a lovely spot. Allerdale council must block this plan, just as it has already sensibly halted a test mast proposal at Tallentire Hill. There is development, and there is development. We can take new building if it adds to our tourism strategy, but we mustn’t take it if it threatens to drive customers away.

Are we putting at risk a perfectly viable, and potentially lucrative business to accommodate something which is still the subject of intense debate? That is the question being raised by Northumberland Tourism - the agency set up this year to promote the county's visitor industry. And it is a perfectly valid one.

If supervisors believe a tourist trail can be successful despite an wind plant along its path, they surely must be confident they can make that argument in court, or during the SCC’s review. Delaying a decision simply because of the fear it will be used against them makes little sense on the face of it. The board should take up this request again soon, before Highland earns a reputation for being closed to regional efforts. This county cannot afford to work alone and miss these kinds of opportunities.

The state shouldn't allow companies to build hundreds of windmills off the coast without first studying their effects on tourism, anglers and wildlife. There's no bigger part of New Jersey's multi-billion dollar tourism industry than the shore.

If Scotland really wants to be the best small country in an increasingly competitive world, we have to present ourselves professionally and use every asset we have to grab what is going. Alternatively, we can sit back and watch developments like the Trump project go to England, France or Spain. Then will we be happy?

In my opinion as a realtor and architect, the true asset in Monroe County is to develop a recreational industry. With its location close to Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Wisconsin Dells, and the Mississippi River, and with the beautiful bluffs, ridges, and picturesque valleys inhabited by Amish settlements, this area has the potential to attract weekend tourists and vacationers, bringing business and employment to thousands of county residents and enterprises. This potential will be lost by the construction of wind turbines, which will pollute the landscape with towers and power lines.

Take us up on this offer and we believe you will come to understand why most Highlanders have reached the conclusion this proposal is more about profit for a very few people at taxpayers’ expense than a viable source of new energy, and that it will destroy much more than the views we now enjoy. It will lead to the destruction of our natural heritage which, as outlined in our comprehensive land use plans, is the foundation of our promising future.

There are no definitive, objective studies of effects of wind energy projects on property values; however, real estate agents recognize and agree that properties with significant natural views have premium value and intrusions on these views erode value. Read all the references to "beautiful view" in real estate ads. People care greatly about view and buy accordingly.

Many of us rely on the beauty of our hills and farms and a business that grows yearly. Please stop chasing the buck. Ide is acting like a real estate broker for big wind and some things (like our hills) should not be for sale.

The decision to drastically alter our landscape will affect our quality of life, our wallets, and our grandchildren.

Vermonters must decide if it is worth destroying their exquisite mountains for symbolism -- because the giant wind turbines being proposed for the ridgelines won't produce much power.