I just want to note that the contention is between coal and wind, not oil and wind. There are many good reasons to prefer wind over coal, but foreign policy is not one of them-- we have mega-tons of coal right here in America.

As for coastal aesthetics, well, that argument is both self-centered and near-sighted. I think that it is pretty clear that there won't be a coast there if we continue with carbon energy generation.

I wanted to make the argument of choice between dead soldiers and dead birds- but realized that would rely on an oil/foreign policy connection, which I was forced to discount. The ecological reality that coal pollution kills more birds and many other species, including us , than wind turbines ever could is sufficient to destroy the 'Save The Birds' argument. Coal not only emits sulfur and carbon dioxides, it also releases Mercury, some very nasty stuff.

Finally, to those in Nantucket- you can suck it- HA!

Polls have shown that Cape residents do support wind turbines -- by about 2 to 1, if I am recalling the polls correctly -- and the further away they live from Nantucket Sound, the more likely they are to support it. Truth be told, the middle and working classes that make Cape Cod run rarely get to see the view these wealthy homeowners value so much, either because so many of the beaches are privately owned or or because they are so busy working two and three jobs just to make ends meet on this horribly overpriced peninsula. For them, any savings in utility bills would help tremendously.

You would never know this if you picked up the local daily, which is on an editorial crusade against the wind farm. In their endorsement of Bush over Kerry in the 2004 election, one of the major factors in their decision not to endorse Kerry was because he had not taken a position on the wind farm. I'm told this is because the powers that be at the paper own those oceanside houses.

Sadly, the Cape Wind project will probably never happen. Too many powerful people don't want it.

Sorry people, not to mix metaphors but bird kill is a red herring, and dead at that. The Altamont area is well known as a one-off in terms of bird kill. Altamont Pass straddles a major breeding area for some raptors; When those turbines were erected, their heights above ground were very low. The birds were killed because they into the blades during low level cruising over the ground during feeding. I mean low level as less than 20 feet or so. That's how low the blades were, or how short the towers were. The blades also were a lot shorter than now. Nowadays, these problems have been largely remediated by the simple design changes of: tall towers, not placed in breeding centers, and very large blades that turn comparatively much slower.

Salon, this was a cheap teaser. It's like reminding people that the Wright Bothers only flew a few seconds when you're discussing modern aviation. And more deeply, that kind of headline only feeds into some selfish people's excuse du jour about why they just can't bring themselves to think about more than themselves right now and forevermore. This kind of selfishness and nimbyism ineluctably leads to war without end around the globe. One of the most lasting effects of the American environmental movement has been the globalization of America's environmental problems. People in this country have to learn to leave the cheap Nimby-pandering rhetoric behind, so that we can stop getting oil from the middle East, timber from Canada, etc. A country that can't feed and clothe itself, teach it's kids and care for it's aged isn't worth fighting for. It's time we stopped exporting our environmental problems, and you could do a lot by losing the so last century fixation on Altamont as an example of wind energy's putative negative externalities.

And besides, Wilmington's (and every city's) office buildings kill thousands of birds a year. Get current.

"Electricity doesn't come from thin air."

Ha!

I know it's coinsidered crazy cuckoo and politically incorrect to point this out, but the meat industry is devastating the global enviroment. According to a very recent U.N. study, found here: (www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html), cattle ranching creates more greenhouse emissions that the automobile industry. Cattle ranching also uses, and devastates, our land and water resources.

Wind energy is fine, but it will kill seabirds and it will destroy natural beauty. These are not trival considerations.

If you want to save the environment and combat global warming, going vegetarian is one of the best ways to do so.

Rainforests are being chopped down for cattle ranching. Aquifers in the United States are being drained for livestock production.

The oceans are being depleted of countless fish species, along with birds and turtles and marine mammals which get caught in nets, because people want their seafood.

Ground and surface water are polluted by fecal runoff from cattle and pig and chicken factories. The air stinks around those places. If there was no demand for meat, this would not be an issue.

I know it's an inconvenient truth to point this out, but going vegetarian will save immense amounts of fuel and save our land, water and air resources. Consider also that China and India, with their newfound wealth, are moving towards a Western style diet of meat consumption. If the environmental consequences of that doesn't scare the hell out of you, it will soon.

I fully expect the insults to fly now, but if you research the environmental impact of meat eating, you'll see that the facts support a switch to a vegetarian diet.

What we need is to reduce our population inorder to reduce our environmental footprint. A Japanese official has said Japan needs to reduce their population by 60 million. So why is the US promoting such a huge foreign immigration? Half of our population growth is from immigrants and their children.

Hmm, let's see.

Mining coal is a dangerous, dirty enterprise that often leaves huge tracts of land scarred for years. It is also a commodity with price fluctuations. Plus burning coal produces pollution (no matter how "clean" it is burned).

And how do we get wind? Oh yeah, it's free and clean. We don't have to do anything to get wind. We just have to put a turbine in the right place and we can generate electricity 87 percent of the time.

Doesn't seem to be much of an argument there unless you're making money off of coal generation.

I hope the people of Delaware demand that their government does the right thing here.

I live next to a 100-turbine wind-farm in Washington state and I love to look up on the hills and see those turbines moving every morning knowing that they are not contributing to air-pollution and global warming.