I'm all for wind farms, solar, tides, whatever works, but we also need to reduce consumption.

Some things are pretty easy to do. The easiest (except, maybe, not having kids) is -- as current light bulbs burn out --replace them with CFLs. According to the federal government (http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/resources/ebulletin/issue.html/volume=53), if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star approved compact fluorescent bulb (CFL), the United States would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars. Think what we could do if we all replaced ½ or ¾ of our bulbs.

A lot of other things aren’t that hard either… Turn things off when not using them. Unplug things with block chargers (like your laptop) when not in use. Install a programmable thermostat. Insulate and seal your house. [It works! I live in a 1930's cape in Buffalo, NY and my biggest heating bill this year was $140.00--and that's without an energy efficient furnace.] Buy less crap. Buy energystar products. Buy local produce when possible. [I live in NYS. Why do I need apples shipped from Washington?]

Then there are the things that are a bit harder... Llving in smaller houses. [“Since 1970 the size of the average home has increased 55 percent (to 2,330 square feet [2004]), while the size of the average family has decreased 13 percent” - From the Wall Street Journal July 2005 Home as Hummers. How much extra energy are we using to build and maintain those bigger houses?] Living closer to work (shorter commutes). Driving smaller cars. Using public transportation. Eating vegetarian.

I certainly don’t do them all, but I find the more I do, the easier it becomes to do more. So while I’ll likely never give up the occasional burger or steak, and I like having my own bathroom, I just bought be an energy efficient furnace. And next up…new windows.

Well, I live in what is considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I've got lots of bridges interfering with the "view".

South Bend, Indiana must be lovely this time of year.

Honestly, I can't believe in 2007 that this is even an issue. The facts are clear: we need to switch from greenhouse-gas emitting power sources immediately. So far I have not heard a single compelling argument against wind power. They are silent, graceful, and clean. They can also bring a little extra revenue to a farmer who erects one or two in the corner of his field. In fact, long stretches of highway through agricultural areas are an ideal place for windmills.

I just can't comprehend people that can dig up excuses to bash clean, free, inexhaustible power. What's the matter with you that you need to fight something like this?

It's migrating birds of all kinds that are in danger. Birds migrate over waterways at night twice a year, over a period of several months.

If you think we don't need birds, check out "The Silent Spring." Right now, our honeybee population is being decimated. If the honeybees and the birds disappear, what will pollinate our crops?

Remember when Mao Tse Tung demanded the Chinese go out and kill birds that were "stealing" grain from the fields? It resulted in a catastrophic famine, because the birds weren't there to consume the bugs that were feeding on the grain crops. Oops!

Birds consume grasshoppers, beetles, moths, weevils. Purple martins can consume thousands of mosquitos a day and evening grosbeaks are estimated to eat 50,000 caterpillars in a summer. What would our trees look like without birds to contain caterpillar infestation?

This would result in -- you guessed it -- a drenching of the air and the ground with pesticides. More pesticides than we use today. Far more. The pesticides that we use now are already leeching into water supplies. What will happen to ocean life, river life, lake life if pesticides have to take the place of birds?

Just because skyscrapers kill birds which wouldn't be killed if the skyscrapers weren't there, and just because well-fed housecats kill millions of birds each year (which didn't happen 100 years ago because less people = less cats, and many cats were not housepets, but "working" cats on farms), just because auto collision and habitat destruction are killing birds doesn't mean that adding millions more dead birds worldwide is ok.

The next time you say "Oh FUCK the birds! I want what I want!".. or fuck anything in the natural world that stands in the way of mankind... you're not thinking.

Not thinking is easy. Rush Limbaugh's listeners do it all the time. They let Rush make their decisions for them; they let Rush think for them. They believe anything he says, just like the people who are reading this shallow "report" about wind turbines might believe everything the article is telling them. Which isn't much; it's mostly topheavy with vapidly cliched depictions of opponents of wind turbines.

It would seem Delaware would be likely place to have a lot of wind generators because it is so ugly in general.....the state looks like a DuPont dumping ground......who would really care about a few turbines amidst all the smoke, soot, runoff, and foul water? The state is mainly shopping malls, credit card comapanies, blase strip malls and an eerie brand of zoning that gives me the willies every time I go there. Except for the swampy areas near the ocean, I say go for it.......

Mr. Grouch

I'm a native New Englander, and I certainly appreciate the beauty of the Cape and Islands. I can also appreciate the beauty of windmills.

From Boston Harbor, you can see a windmill in Dorchester and another in Hull. They look like part of the landscape. I've seen a mountaintop wind farm Searsburg, Vermont. The windmills look very nice spinning in the breeze. They're great for the environment, and they might even attract more tourists.

As for the birds, the smart ones will figure it out.