My letter to the woman who decides whether Searsburg's expansion goes ahead or not

Dear Gina Owens, It has come to our attention that Deerfield Wind LLC has applied for a Special Use authorization to use lands under the management of the Forest Service for the construction and long-term operation of a wind energy facility. The construction would use land in the towns of Searsburg and Readsboro in the Green Mountain National Forest. For a private developer to make a profit while using public lands has been a subject of bitter controversy out west, and threatens to present problems in New England, now that wind power prospectors are eyeing private and public lands to put up their industrial wind facilities. Some of New England’s mountain ridges have stood unmolested because there is a sense that there are places where man should not put his mark. This does not mean that they have not been logged, and this does not mean that, once upon a time people were very cavalier about our natural heritage and killed hundreds of fish and shot carrier pigeons until they were all gone, and built carriage roads up mountains and built hotels on mountain peaks because they were not yet sensitive to the fact that our natural resources are finite, and we need to move very carefully when making changes to the lands which are held in public trust and which belong, in a sense, to everyone. You are the overseer of land which is legally under your jurisdiction, but another aspect of your power concerns a heritage which belongs to us all and to future generations, whether it be land owned by park services or townships or private land owners. Mountain ridges are visible for miles around, and have represented to native Americans and people who revere the land a realm which should somehow be held in respect, not used in the same way that less wild areas can be used. These less accessible lands are also havens for wild life, havens which are shrinking every day as man uses huge and powerful machinery and technology which makes practically any terrain "his" because he can muscle his way there. Too bad for the creatures who have no defense against this progress, unless we stop a moment and realize it is up to us to set boundaries to expansion so that wild places can continue to exist and to refresh people who come to them for respite from the industrialized world they have created. Let us think a moment about the changes being proposed: In addition to the fact that these are huge wind turbines (the size of tall buildings of 30 to 40 stories!), noisy and lighted at night, their construction requires clearing and road building and additional power lines and transfer stations. There will be maintenance traffic; roads must be kept in such a condition that heavy equipment can be brought up to make mid-winter repairs, for instance, or replace one behemoth with another, if the first fails (this has happened); lands will be fragmented, which affects the movement of wildlife, its nesting habits, etc., and the activity and new roads will encourage further use by ATVs, snowmobiles, etc. on lands which were once less accessible. These are not the only negative effects an industrial installation in the midst of what was once undeveloped land will make for. Rather than enumerating them all, let me speak also about the nature of wind power itself. It behooves you to look at the record of the existing Searsburg wind plant. When we first began to study wind power three or four years ago, we were encouraged by developers to take a tour of Searsburg because it was an example of how wonderful wind power was, and how unobtrusive. Since then the propaganda has been modified, so now one speaks about Searsburg’s being more of an experimental project, about how much has been learned since its building, etc., etc. This subtle change of tone has come about, perhaps, because people are beginning to have a serious look at the claims of wind power advocates, and Searsburg’s in particular. There is a good study of that project’s actual production, available from Eleanor Tillinghast (eleanortillinghast@att.net), an environmentalist from Massachusetts, who studied Searsburg’s output. Searsburg’s turbines are said to be accepted by the locals, but word has it that this expansion, which will not be tucked away conveniently out of sight, and whose turbines will be bigger than the original 11, is stirring up opposition. You have to ask yourself, after you have read about wind power, both the pros and the cons, whether a further sacrifice of natural scenery for the sake of a puny amount of unreliable power is worth it. You will surely feel pressure from environmentalists who say that, no matter what the faults of wind power, even no matter that not a single fossil fuel plant will be shut down once this expansion goes up, we must do everything. Wind power has become a symbol for that sort of environmentalist, who is, in my opinion, a rather ruthless character, willing to endanger birds, lower property values, decrease the pleasure of people who once sought out places like Vermont and Maine for their wild character, so that he can point to his version of progress toward a healthier planet. There is another kind of environmentalist as well. One who realizes that making big changes - once more putting theories into action with very little humility, when all the facts about climate change are not yet in, for instance, and when conservation and greater efficiency and other sources of renewable energy are put aside because the surge is all for wind power - might be folly of the highest order. One of the things which I find most appalling as I have read about environmental theories and history is that people rarely if ever say they were mistaken and that they regret having acted precipitously. In the 70s we were running around, frantic about global cooling. There was going to be famine and war, and all manner of calamity because "government hadn’t the political will to do something..." Now we hear the same call to action from the global warming people, and those who want to move more cautiously are called shills for one industry or another, or NIMBYs....but no one calls into question the huge industry that wind power has spawned - for the moment, at least. So, please, take a long moment to read and reflect, and then come down in favor of the "No Action" alternative. You will contribute to a calmer consideration of wind power, its claims and the problems associated with it, and thereby continue to stand guard in the meantime over the ridges your office gives you the power to protect or throw in harm’s way. Thank you for giving your time to this important question. I would be happy to give you further information, if you'd like it. Sincerely, Vera Trafton