The destruction of lush forests full of life will only encourage global warming. The state's new Carbon Management Advisory Group (CMAG) Report notes that loss of forests to development causes a one-time surge of greenhouse gas emissions and eliminates the forests' future ability to sequester carbon. ...The wind industries target small rural areas ...Maybe it would be more beneficial to install them in every mall parking lot and big cities where there are no trees, plenty of noise to drown them out, and where the people that really want them can see them and enjoy them as much as they think they do.

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.

If Pennsylvania had a scientifically sound and open windmill-siting process, possible conflicts such as this would be independently researched and decided. Without a legal framework to properly evaluate and make a determination, no one is well served -- not the public, not the wind industry, not those who want to take advantage of this technology, and certainly not the environment. We need a sound windmill-siting process in Pennsylvania -- and need it soon ...

On June 29, 2006, I sent a two-page letter to Mr. Vought in regards to his and Gamesa's offer. This is a "quote" from that letter. "You stated (Tim Vought) that the first phase of wind-power development would consist of 30 wind-powered turbines, the first year (2007). Also, 30 more to follow in the second phase, which would be approximately two years, with other phases being considered." You stated this would be a definite because of the vast land holdings of Berwind Corporation (7,935 + acres) which were leased to Gamesa. Berwind-Gamesa lease of Nov. 22, 2005, in effect Gamesa leases the Windber Area Authority Watershed! Mr. Vought, John Kott was definitely 100 percent right in his statement! ...In closing, your letter to the editor, "Some simple facts" turns out to be another Gamesa "smoke-screen" containing nothing more than spin, half-truths, and in some cases such as the Windber Area Authorities cutting of timber - totally false and untrue statements!

Clean energy, no greenhouse gases, less dependence on foreign oil, guaranteed revenue for Tyrone - what's the catch? Well, there are many definite and possible catches. Gamesa promises no negative impacts to Tyrone's drinking water, but I wonder if they can really build all of those giant wind turbines without erosion taking place. There is always the possibility of an accident as well. According to Stan Kotala, spokesperson for the Juniata Valley Audubon Society, the small environmental gain from building the windmills would be offset by a huge ecological cost. Sandy Ridge has been identified as an Important Bird Area and a greenway. The wind turbines threaten birds and building them causes forest fragmentation. Mayor Kilmartin points out in his analysis, "... the structures will take up the ridge tops that people so tremendously love about this community." And these are big structures, too. One can't really comprehend their 450-foot height until you get close.

Recent articles, stated the project will enhance the water quality at this site. Also, Gamesa states that protecting natural resources and wildlife is a "shared priority" with the community. If this is so, then why was there a rattlesnake study of the area done in November (when snakes are hibernating)? Why did Gamesa do a study on bird migration in July, when bird migration doesn't start until late August, September and October? How does bringing in large equipment to clear-cut the forest and building new roads improve water quality of streams that are already of the highest quality in the state?

It's time for the public to be heard. If we remain silent, we could open the door for exploitation: constant noise, day and night; irreparable damage to our groundwater resources and disruption of surface landscape; human health and safety risks - and the list goes on. We owe it to future generations not to sit idly by as the wind energy companies target Potter County. We can act today, or we can spend decades wishing that we would have.

Wind needs to be part of that solution. But a critical question is this: How far do you go in trying to save the planet by destroying it? We appreciate the urgency, but ravaging the planet in the name of saving it doesn't constitute an alternative-energy strategy as much as an alternative environmental calamity. There are many places where windmills would work fine without impact, but the entire effort is wasting valuable time trying to develop the optimum wind sites at the expense of every other consideration. That's an impediment to rigorously confronting climate change, not a solution.

I have read Gamesa's Mr. Michael Peck's and Mr. Tim Vought's articles in the Daily American. I would like to comment on a few of Mr. Peck and Mr. Vought's observations. Mr. Peck stated, "Any claim made that Gamesa did not provide accurate information to the Windber Area Authority to review is false." The real truth of the matter is the Windber Area Authority did not receive any useful information concerning this project that anyone could make a qualified decision on given the massive scale of this project until our March 14 meeting, when we got the plans from a private citizen who obtained them from the Somerset Conservation District. If anyone says anything differently then they are speaking with a forked tongue.

...the expected generating capacity of wind farms during heat waves -- when ozone alerts are more likely to occur and would be most serious -- is probably going to be far lower than their summertime average. AN OFTEN-POSED rhetorical question asks if "smokestacks" are preferable to wind farms -- a false choice. Thousands more wind turbines are coming, yet smokestacks will persist and likely increase in number. Wind turbines will not qualify as credible substitutes for building future power plants since they cannot be counted on to produce electricity when needed. They also will not result in the retirement of any existing power plant given the ever-increasing growth in demand for electricity in our region.

Comparing Allegheny Ridge to Shaffer Mountain is like comparing apples to oranges. And these differences are the reason Gamesa's industrialization of this section of Shaffer Mountain will be stopped. It's all about the siting. The siting of these industrial facilities, if not regulated soon, may well doom the ablility of industrial wind to reach its full potential. The people of the Commonwealth are not going to stand for the destruction of the last of our highest quality wild habitats, especially when we have hundreds of thousands of acres of reclaimed strip mines, with great wind, that have already been destroyed.

Also, as I draft this response, I have just received confirmation that the Public meeting and Public Hearing for NPDES Permit No. PA 105560700 1; Proposed Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm, Ogle and Shade townships, Somerset County and Napier Township, Bedford County will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 28, at the Shade-Central City High School. I'll be there - will you? In closing, in regards to your mentioning Newton's third law of motion, I would add this - "Desperate people do desperate things" and so it goes with the industrialization of Shaffer Mountain. Desperation on your and Gamesa's part, Tim Vought! We will "Save The Mountain!"

Besides the fact that industrial wind turbines destroy habitat, endanger wildlife and disturb wetlands and streams, I guarantee that if you were told that when you look out of your picture window, instead of seeing the beautiful horizon, you will see an industrial turbine staring back at you, you would throw a fit. Well, that is what I will be viewing......If Gamesa proceeds with this, there will be nothing left for the next generation. We are mere tenants of this earth; it is our place to take care of it. We belong to the earth, it does not belong to us. That is a world truth.

You will notice on these editorial pages lately a number of individuals espousing the "Truth" about the Gamesa Wind Project on Shaffer Mountain. With very little research I was able to find a few "Untruths" presented by Tim Vought of Gamesa on this last go around published on Friday.

Gamesa's guest column last week, written by their corporate spokesman, Michael Peck, is an example of spin, half-truths and out and out untruths that Gamesa has tried to use to promote its proposed Shaffer Mountain wind plant. Gamesa starts out by referring to those opposing the Shaffer Mountain wind plant as "anti-wind advocates." Nothing could be further from the truth.

How did Gamesa Corporation, a wind-energy company from Spain, find Shaffer Mountain, a small section of the Allegheny Front in Pennsylvania, which lies in Somerset and Bedford counties? Although we do not know all the details, we do know in 2004, that Gov. Rendell and Kathleen McGinty, secretary of Department of Environmental Protection, enticed Gamesa to abandon plans to build in Texas, by promising Gamesa that it would receive millions of dollars in grants, loans, and tax credits, financed with taxpayers' money. Federal income tax shelters will allow Gamesa to avoid paying taxes owed and thereby recover two-thirds of the capital cost of each turbine - about $2 million each. We also know that Gamesa has received tax-free status through 2018 by locating on land that is a Keystone Opportunity Improvement Zone. Even before Gamesa started construction in our state, the company had purchase agreements and letters of intent to sell 400 megawatts worth of wind-generated power to Pennsylvania utilities. But how did Gamesa find Shaffer Mountain? It's simple: Shaffer Mountain has wind.

Mr. Oldham mentions the report of hydrologist, James Casselberry, who, based on six pages of information Gamesa originally supplied, said the development would not hurt anything because the construction would be on the surface and WAA gets its water from deep wells. This conclusion is absurd. Last time I checked, water falls from the sky on the surface of the land - right where Gamesa wants to develop this project. The WAA can stop this project dead in its tracks. It has the absolute legal right to do so under the land use agreement it signed with Berwind in 1989. In order to insure that the water supply for their 10,000 customers is not degraded, WAA must maintain their vote against this development.

Tilting at Windmills" on May 18 may have left some readers unaware that there are factual reasons for intelligent, well-adjusted people to oppose the construction of wind turbine complexes in the county. Conflict lies between those who wish to preserve the natural character of large tracts of undeveloped land and those who do not care or are among the few who will benefit financially from turbines.