Here in Northumberland, we live in one of the most beautiful counties east of Toronto. But, I am not sure our local governments really appreciate the effect of what is not in place for safety and environmental issues, and future protection from visual and noise pollution. Why the focus on large wind farms? They are not environmentally friendly and pose a real danger for wildlife and its future in the area. ...In addition, there is the visual pollution of the hills we use to attract tourists.

As tourists arrive to appreciate this landscape for the first time, it is here that many also have their first encounter with modern, large-scale wind power production. Upon seeing that these facilities are not, as they are portrayed in numerous cartoon images on electrical bills, mere sets of three or four towers nestled into rolling glens, travelers' first impressions are often negative. Such encounters do not just hurt tourism in Texas but also renewable energy causes in tourists' own parts of the world.

Performing a detailed feasibility study and siting analysis of wind turbine placement atop our Berkshire hills is dependent upon corporate proprietary information which could be purposely withheld (in restraint of trade) for fear that competition could gain an unfair advantage if it were divulged. Such a practice stifles competition from firms performing similar services ...but is particularly injurious to the industry which depends the most on the wise use of our land-based natural resources.

How many people work inside an industrial wind turbine? How long do the construction jobs last post-project? This is industrialization of a vast area of land without many sustainable local jobs. Wind energy development on such a large scale will certainly seal the fate for the area. It is a life sentence which defines the land use for decades.

When debating wind energy, there is one point we can all agree on: there are sites suited for wind energy and sites that are not. Our beautiful township is not suitable. The moratorium passed unanimously by our Township Council reflects this. One visit here and it will be clear to you. ...The point is, Mr. Smitherman, our main industry is tourism and recreation. Visitors drive for several hours to enjoy the sense of wilderness our beautiful township offers. They come here to get away from industry. Please understand, this township's livelihood and way of life depends largely on the natural beauty of this land.

Instead of messing with farms, let's put solar and wind energy facilities where they belong. ...This legislation tries to satisfy one societal need - clean energy - by compromising another - preserved farmland. Perhaps it's easier to place clean power generation facilities on open land than retrofit other sites, but this tendency to look to greenfields to satisfy new development needs is precisely the kind of practice that has brought so much sprawl to New Jersey.

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.

The issue of constructing these 500 kV power lines is being fought throughout the country. Debates and litigation are ongoing in Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Florida and Canada. The issue relates to the fact that these transmission lines are of a size and strength few have seen. At the Montville meeting, PSE&G was unable to address the mayor's desire to drive within one to two hours and see these proposed 190-foot towers. I accept the fact that when I purchased my home three years ago it was near a current right of way, but the idea that towers can go from 85 feet up to 190 feet without any impact on my property value is ludicrous.

...to think that wind turbines are going to offer a long-term stimulus for tourism revenue is foolish. These giant wind turbines are a novelty to Michiganders right now. But as time goes by, the novelty will wear off. And as more and more wind turbines are built, there will be more and more people living here and paying the price for this "green" energy. ...and those living in the Thumb with these wind turbines towering over their homes will pay again in loss of property value and quality of life.

But before you go all wacky for wind power, certain opposition groups like the Industrial Wind Action Group and National Wind Watch want you to hear their side of the story. Their claims are more than just not-in-my-backyard, wet-blanket-complaints. They believe the wind energy industry is spinning lies along with the turbines, luring large public subsidies for a system that is, at best, secondary to fossil fuels.

Governor Corzine's energy master plan for New Jersey calls for a reduction of 20 percent in energy consumption by 2020. It also proposes that by that same year, just 12 years hence, 22.5 percent of the state's electricity should come from renewable sources, chiefly wind and solar, up from 2 percent now. Further, New Jersey emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced by 20 percent. These goals are remarkable. Energy use has been growing steadily. Nearly half the state's power plants are 30 years old or older. Some will have to be replaced, sooner or later. ...Some interesting things are happening, but as for the 2020 goals set by Corzine, he, and we, had better not get our hopes up.

In an attempt to help meet Gov. Jon Corzine's targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state, several developers submitted proposals last week to construct offshore wind farms. If a proposal is accepted, it would be the first offshore wind farm in the United States ...Given that the projected cost of a proposal could reach $1.4 billion, there is a concern as to who will pay for the construction of the wind farm. The developer will outlay the cost. If the project is not subsidized, the high original cost would most likely be passed along to the energy consumer.

On Lewis the turbines will dominate the shores of many trout lochs, yet Lewis Wind Power's environmental survey makes no mention of the environmental impact on the lochs; it makes no reference to the existence of the lochs at all. The "green lobby" often use terms like "sustainable" to describe the industrial complex that Mr McIver hopes the Barvas Moor would become once the turbines are built. Industrialisation and the current sustainable lifestyle which has protected a unique ecosystem for thousands of years are incompatible, it is impossible for them to work hand in hand ...

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was an attempt to pave the way - almost literally - for energy companies to take advantage of pre-approved corridors that cut through public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The problem is that much of the land that would be pre-approved is in sensitive wildlife habitat and cherished wildlands. Routes were chosen more with an eye to economic efficiencies than environmental impacts, and the result is a plan that is blatantly skewed to favor the interests of the energy companies over the interests of the general public. ...The Energy Department recently released a draft of its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and will be accepting public comment on the statement until mid-February. It plans to hold a public meeting in Helena on Jan. 29, but you can provide your comments now by going to its Web site at corridoreis.anl.gov. We hope Montanans from all over the state will take the opportunity to firmly oppose the plan as it's currently proposed, because it will take all of Montana to sink this awful idea.

About "getting used to the turbines," I live under the existing eyesores. I have not, nor will I, get used to them. They are noisy, with constant whirring and intermittent clunks that I first mistook for gunshots. I can hear this inside my house with the windows shut. The proposed expansion will, by the developers' estimates, put the average noise level at my house at 44.9 dBA. The World Health Organization defines 45 dBA as unfit for human habitation. Several acres of my property, and that of dozens of neighbors, will be above this limit. I doubt that I would get used to that. Would you? ...There are better alternatives for electricity production. One is located right in Somerset. Vermont leads the nation (by a large margin) in percent of energy consumption from renewable sources. Adding more wind turbines would not alter that ratio, for reasons stated above. The turbines will not help our energy needs and don't belong in the National Forest. Let's keep it a forest.

The state Board of Public Utilities is ready to commit up to $1.9 million now and $19 million over time to entice private companies to study and prepare grant applications for a wind turbine project off the Jersey coast. ...But the environmental impact and economic questions about offshore wind farms have not been answered. The impact on fishing, wildlife and shipping is important to the state. So is the cost of locating, maintaining and operating such a project. Until it has those answers, the state is "putting the cart before the horse," as Tim Dillingham of the American Littoral Society said after learning of the BPU's solicitation.

If you're expecting the mainstream media to tell you the truth about wind power, I will be happy to come by and read some fairy tales to you. Wind farms are one of those trendy, environmental fairy tales about "alternative" energy sources that will save us all from burning coal to provide electricity because, according the Great Big Book of Environmentally Bad Things, it's "a fossil fuel" and it "pollutes."

In the absence of a state energy master plan defining how much real energy Corzine believes will come from offshore wind, a hard look at it in relation to overall energy demand and the ability to replace fossil fuel sources or address global climate change is needed. Offshore wind farms are not the answer to our energy problems. Industrial wind farms are expensive and inefficient: They cost hundreds of millions of dollars (much of it public money) and need thousands of turbines to produce relatively small amounts of electricity in relation to New Jersey's overall demand. Even then, they will have only a minimal impact on emissions that contribute to global cli mate change, and won't affect sea level rise at the Jersey Shore. A realistic look at the environmental benefits of expensive offshore wind facilities leads one to conclude that we should invest scarce public resources in more effective means of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions -- which is absolutely necessary in the face of global warming and its effects on New Jersey.

Wake up, New Jersey, before more of your tax dollars are wasted on Gov. Corzine's offshore wind farm. ...In these hard financial times, our state and federal governments need to invest taxpayer dollars more wisely than they have. Alternative energy sources are needed, but they must make financial sense. Windmills on land are borderline cost-effective, and that's only because of energy subsidies. Windmills in the north Atlantic never will come close to recovering their cost. If something doesn't make financial sense, we should be looking at who will benefit from its construction. New Jersey citizens will not benefit from this ocean wind farm. Electric costs will rise because of it. Someone needs to follow the money to see who will benefit.