View Full Version : Redington Protected !!!
Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission this afternoon voted 6-1 to reject the construction of 30 wind turbines located as close as a mile from the Appalachian Trail on Redington Mountain.
The $150 million project, under discussion for the past 15 years, would have had a capacity of 90 megawatts, making it the largest wind power project ever proposed for New England.
The Maine Appalachian Trail Club, assisted by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, had been the key opponents, and had won the support of the Appalachian Mountain Club, Maine Audubon, the National Park Service and other environmental groups concerned with the future of the Western Maine Mountains.
The commission staff had recommended approval. But the board, which was created in 1970 to keep Maine's unorganized townships wild, rejected it's staff recommendation and voted to ask the staff to draft another report containing legal criteria for rejection.
During the six hour discussion board members stressed the proximity of the Appalachian Trail as the prime reason for rejecting the project.
Pamela Underhill, director of the trail for the National Park Service, had opposed the project at hearings last fall, and spoke briefly at the decision meeting. She said the park service is not opposed to wind energy, but did oppose this project because of it's impact of the scenic qualities of the trail.
MATC and ATC had spent nearly $200,000 in hiring legal and environment experts to oppose the development. A special fund raising effort, however, fell well short of money needed for the battle.
Weary
Can this decision be challenged in court or is this issue now settled?
TJ aka Teej
01-24-2007, 18:47
6-1! Weary, many thanks to you and to all who lead the way on this important issue!
Can this decision be challenged in court or is this issue now settled?
The decision can be challenged, but I understand that California Edison, the prime financial backer for a small Maine windpower company has said it wouldn't appeal.
There is also the possibility that LURC commissioners might change their minds. The project had been opposed by trail groups, but had been endorsed by several major newspapers. Commissioners will be under strong political pressure to change their minds. I spent all day at the meeting, however, and the opposition appeared firm.
The law requires that new developments in the half of Maine with no organized cities and towns to fit "harmoniously into the existing natural enviroment." That is difficult to do when 410 foot high turbines are placed on the ridgelines of Mountains that extend only about 2000 above the valley floors.
The staff recommendation appeared to me to be in response to the political mood of governor and legislative leaders, not the requirements of the law. LURC Commissioners generally agreed.
Proponents of the wind power development stressed the need to counteract global warming. Commissioners, however, said the law makes no exception for such concerns and that they are bound by the words of the law as adopted by the Legislature.
Weary
So much for using alternative energy to fight global warming.
So much for using alternative energy to fight global warming.Heh heh. Funny how we put our conservation money behind the oil industry to help them defeat a clean, renewable energy source.
Maybe Big Business is right. We have plenty of oil and even more coal.
What's a little more acid- and mercury-rain among friends?
So much for using alternative energy to fight global warming.
Are you saying that the commissioners should have ignored the plain language of the law, just because alternative energy is important? We don't have to destroy the last wild places to save the world. This was a good project in the wrong place.
We all agonized over the issue. But in the end, it did not seem wise to damage one of the most beautiful places on the Appalachian Trail for a piddling amount of energy, just so we could be politically correct and legally wrong.
Every vote MATC took in opposition to this project was unanimous, except one that was attended by the developer, who paid the $15 dues in order to push his project.
MATC is not an elitist, social club. It does nothing but maintain the trail in Maine. These are the guys that clear the blow downs, cut the brush, build the bog bridges and construct the leantos -- and incidentally beg for the money needed to accomplish these things and to fight the wind power development.
The members are mostly working people who love working on the trail. 200 members contributed 20,000 hours of volunteer labor on the trail, last year. That's 100 hours each on average -- 2.5 ordinary work weeks.
How many work hours did you donate last year, bfitz?
Weary
The people have decided, as I said they would. Time to bury the hatchets between the opponents and proponents and get back to the business of HIKING.
How many work hours did you donate last year, bfitz?
To the trail? Mabye 3, if that.
Didn't mean to badmouth any members of the MATC, Weary. I'm grateful, and the trail in Maine is beautiful, in large part due to them. You can roll your sleeves back down.:p
I kinda prefer the trail pretty like that anyway, and those windmills kill a lot of birds. Not my first choice as a clean renewable energy source except in a few locations where it makes sense. Still kinda ironic though, considering some previous discussions, don'tch'ya think?
terrapin_too
01-24-2007, 20:17
You know, I never had much dog in this fight. I'm not with Weary on this one, but I'm not upset at the outcome either. It startled and saddened me that ATC chose to fight against the windmills. It doesn't sadden me much that the project will be cancelled, delayed or relocated -- this isn't a make/break point for alternative energy by any means. I just didn't see the world ending, either way.
You know, I never had much dog in this fight. I'm not with Weary on this one, but I'm not upset at the outcome either. It startled and saddened me that ATC chose to fight against the windmills. It doesn't sadden me much that the project will be cancelled, delayed or relocated -- this isn't a make/break point for alternative energy by any means. I just didn't see the world ending, either way.
We live in an advocacy society. ATC -- and tiny MATC which provided most of the money in this effort -- fought to protect the trail. Others fought to promote alternative energy. MATC won -- despite my doubts, though I knew that the project was a blatant violation of the LURC law.
Had the project been approved, it would have been a violation of the rule of law. Sadly, MATC simply lacked the resources to carry its opposition forward, had the decision been otherwise, and no one else, including holier than thou White Blaze members, had seriously opposed with dollars even the initial opposition.
The developers, who stood to make many millions in taxpayer subsidies had this project gone forward, were defeated.
The lesson learned, I hope, is that trail fanatics should support the trail, because occasionally we win. The developers and profiteers should be allowed to fight their own battles without the help of misguided, politically correct, sometime hikers.
Weary
terrapin_too
01-24-2007, 21:51
The developers and profiteers should be allowed to fight their own battles without the help of misguided, politically correct, sometime hikers.
Weary, you'd be hard pressed to find any hikers, here at WB or anywhere else, actively pulling for the "developers and profiteers." Savor your victory. Watch for the upcoming IPCC report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070123/sc_afp/unclimate_070123191103) on February 2.
saimyoji
01-24-2007, 22:12
Great news. Hard work paid off. Kludos. :D
WalkinHome
01-25-2007, 18:59
Hi Terrapin Two, I repsectfully ask that you keep your eye on the ball. "It startled and saddened me that ATC chose to fight against the windmills" is not accurate. The Maine AT Club et al were not argueing against windpower- just this site choice. There is already a windmill farm in Maine and more in pending status and will likely be approved. If we were against windpower we would be going to those hearings in a big way also. Maine is ahead of its own regulations as to how much renewable generation we currently have. Off my sopabox now but the hearing was very interesting to see.
terrapin_too
01-25-2007, 19:07
Hi Terrapin Two, I repsectfully ask that you keep your eye on the ball. "It startled and saddened me that ATC chose to fight against the windmills" is not accurate. The Maine AT Club et al were not argueing against windpower- just this site choice.
It's plain old NIMBYism from where I sit, even if it's the ATC and/or MATC doing it. I would have been content with either outcome. Of all the fights to "preserve wilderness" I saw this one as misplaced. That's just how I see it, and I know it's a minority view on this forum. So be it.
hopefulhiker
01-25-2007, 19:36
I am glad. Some places should be left alone, even for alternative energy.
Jim Adams
01-25-2007, 21:02
Are you saying that the commissioners should have ignored the plain language of the law, just because alternative energy is important? We don't have to destroy the last wild places to save the world. This was a good project in the wrong place.
We all agonized over the issue. But in the end, it did not seem wise to damage one of the most beautiful places on the Appalachian Trail for a piddling amount of energy, just so we could be politically correct and legally wrong.
Every vote MATC took in opposition to this project was unanimous, except one that was attended by the developer, who paid the $15 dues in order to push his project.
MATC is not an elitist, social club. It does nothing but maintain the trail in Maine. These are the guys that clear the blow downs, cut the brush, build the bog bridges and construct the leantos -- and incidentally beg for the money needed to accomplish these things and to fight the wind power development.
The members are mostly working people who love working on the trail. 200 members contributed 20,000 hours of volunteer labor on the trail, last year. That's 100 hours each on average -- 2.5 ordinary work weeks.
How many work hours did you donate last year, bfitz?
Weary
1. This is by no means wilderness.
2. laws can be changed for the good of the planet.
3. This is very elitist when maybe 25,000 people a year get that view but small pockets of "woods" are being kept from alternative energy production at the expense of everyone in the world suffering pollution.:-?
geek
Whoohooo!
That is the best news I have heard in weeks! I hope that this wind farm is finally dead for good. Keep it wild!
I remember that section of the trail as one of the more beautiful and more remote feeling. There are plenty of other places those towers can go rather than right next to the AT! How bout out in the flats of Aroostook County for example? or even better..on the property of those folks who say they love a clean environment yet don't mind at all despoling it with all these towers!
DavidNH
Whoohooo!
That is the best news I have heard in weeks! I hope that this wind farm is finally dead for good. Keep it wild!
I remember that section of the trail as one of the more beautiful and more remote feeling. There are plenty of other places those towers can go rather than right next to the AT! How bout out in the flats of Aroostook County for example? or even better..on the property of those folks who say they love a clean environment yet don't mind at all despoling it with all these towers!
DavidNH
Just want to add to my own post here. Hopeful hiker sums it up best: Some places should be left alone. That is it in a nut shell. There are places that just need to be left alone!
1. This is by no means wilderness.
2. laws can be changed for the good of the planet.
3. This is very elitist when maybe 25,000 people a year get that view but small pockets of "woods" are being kept from alternative energy production at the expense of everyone in the world suffering pollution.:-?
You act like the Redington windfarm and others in "small pockets of woods" would solve all the worlds suffering.
There are other areas where the windmills can go. Let's not destroy what's left of the Maine version of wilderness.
Jim Adams
01-25-2007, 22:43
It would not change the "wilderness" except for the view...you know...basically the same view where you can see ski resorts and airports.
geek
THIS IS NOT A WILDERNESS AREA!!!!
It's plain old NIMBYism from where I sit, even if it's the ATC and/or MATC doing it. .....
It was a bright sunny day on the coast of Maine. I needed no heat despite temperatures that hovered around the zero mark and a brisk wind. Why? I live in a properly insulated house I designed and partially built. When the sun shines through my south-facing windows, I need no fossil fuels. When the sun goes down, I heat mostly with scrap wood. So faR this winter I've heated my home with the sun, a few scraps of wood, and 100 gallons of fossil fuel oil.
I was an early experimentor in energy efficient housing. I have since built a second house on coastal Maine that has yet to use 75 gallons of fuel oil this winter, both for domestic hot water and home heat, even without a wood stove. This free solar energy cost nothing extra in my house. I spent maybe $2,000 extra in my second house to save a thousand dollars a year in heating and hot water costs.
All I'm suggesting is that given the ease by which incredible savings in green house gases, scarce energy, money, and war inducing petroleum usage can be achieved, I don't think a sensible society needs to destroy its last bits of wildness.
Rather, the NIMBYs are those who are too lazy or too ignorant to make the slight effort needed to conserve. The real NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Weary
It would not change the "wilderness" except for the view...you know...basically the same view where you can see ski resorts and airports.
geek
THIS IS NOT A WILDERNESS AREA!!!!
Oh well, to put the final nail in the coffin, lets add a few dozen windmills, 1200 condos and a few huts..
terrapin_too
01-26-2007, 00:13
Weary, I'm not looking to argue with you. I certainly won't deny the importance of energy conservation. But we disagree over the aesthetic impact of windmills, and maybe on the rules, procedures, priorities, ethics (etc.) for siting windmills. You've dutifully explained the "official" ATC/MATC outlook on the matter, with which I respectfully disagree. That's all. I'm happy for you. I am not displeased with the outcome. I'd not have been displeased with the other outcome, either.
Weary, I'm not looking to argue with you. I certainly won't deny the importance of energy conservation. But we disagree over the aesthetic impact of windmills, and maybe on the rules, procedures, priorities, ethics (etc.) for siting windmills. You've dutifully explained the "official" ATC/MATC outlook on the matter, with which I respectfully disagree. That's all. I'm happy for you. I am not displeased with the outcome. I'd not have been displeased with the other outcome, either.
Hey, I love windmills. I would welcome them on the uninhabited, state-owned island, a quarter mile from my living room window.
Just not a $150 million complex of windmills on one of the few really wild sections of a 2,000-mile-long scenic trail.
Weary
Jim Adams
01-26-2007, 02:33
You act like the Redington windfarm and others in "small pockets of woods" would solve all the worlds suffering.
There are other areas where the windmills can go. Let's not destroy what's left of the Maine version of wilderness.
Sly,
:-? If you believe that all of these small pockets wouldn't add together to help then why count ounces in your pack?
geek
Jim Adams
01-26-2007, 02:40
It was a bright sunny day on the coast of Maine. I needed no heat despite temperatures that hovered around the zero mark and a brisk wind. Why? I live in a properly insulated house I designed and partially built. When the sun shines through my south-facing windows, I need no fossil fuels. When the sun goes down, I heat mostly with scrap wood. So faR this winter I've heated my home with the sun, a few scraps of wood, and 100 gallons of fossil fuel oil.
I was an early experimentor in energy efficient housing. I have since built a second house on coastal Maine that has yet to use 75 gallons of fuel oil this winter, both for domestic hot water and home heat, even without a wood stove. This free solar energy cost nothing extra in my house. I spent maybe $2,000 extra in my second house to save a thousand dollars a year in heating and hot water costs.
All I'm suggesting is that given the ease by which incredible savings in green house gases, scarce energy, money, and war inducing petroleum usage can be achieved, I don't think a sensible society needs to destroy its last bits of wildness.
Rather, the NIMBYs are those who are too lazy or too ignorant to make the slight effort needed to conserve. The real NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Weary
Weary,
I TOTALLY AGREE, I live very similar but use only a very small amount of wood for my heat. I meant no disrespect and do applaud your efforts for the trail and your beliefs but what most people don't understand is that there are very few places in North America where the wind is strong enough for most of the time to drive a windmill. The turn around has to start somewhere.
geek
....there are very few places in North America where the wind is strong enough for most of the time to drive a windmill. The turn around has to start somewhere. geek
The best places are along the shores on both coasts and the Great Lakes. Wealthy people live there so these are considered off limits. I consider the trail to be off limits. Thanks to a decision I made a half century ago, I live on the coast. It's my judgment that windmills fit far more harmoniously into the natural environment on the already developed coast line, than in wild mountains near a National Scenic Trail, which is why I've devoted many hundreds of hours to opposing the Redington Project.
A few miles to the west developers have proposed a wind project twice as large as Redington/Black Nubble, on a beautiful range of wild mountains, that i would greatly dislike seeing developed. However, for the reasons you suggest, I am not going to spend any time trying to oppose that project and when it was proposed that MATC formally oppose the project, I lead the opposition, which was nearly unanimous.
BTW, Maine already has one wind project on a mountain many miles north of Katahdin. Others are proposed for open farm fields also north of the trail. The "turn around" is already well started.
Weary
A few miles to the west developers have proposed a wind project twice as large as Redington/Black Nubble, on a beautiful range of wild mountains, that i would greatly dislike seeing developed. However, for the reasons you suggest, I am not going to spend any time trying to oppose that project and when it was proposed that MATC formally oppose the project, I lead the opposition, which was nearly unanimous.
Weary
i was wondering if you were going to comment on kibby.
congradulations weary!:)
although i've never agreed with the asthetics pov, redington should be protected, it's an ecologically significant area.
btw, offshore wind power is a more expensive route, but as europe has already proved, it's the way the industry will inevitably go.
Sly,
:-? If you believe that all of these small pockets wouldn't add together to help then why count ounces in your pack?
geek
I'm not totally opposed to wind power but I'd rather see one nuclear plant than 1000 windmills up and down the national scenic trails.
How many windmills would it take to produce the power of one average size reactor?
If the Kibby mountain windpower project gets through, you will be able to SEE these wind turbines from the AT too. Just from a distance, given a 15-20 mile visibility. Does that make it OK/better?, From a distance? Just curious.
If the Kibby mountain windpower project gets through, you will be able to SEE these wind turbines from the AT too. Just from a distance, given a 15-20 mile visibility. Does that make it OK/better?, From a distance? Just curious.
Distance is a great shield -- especially in these days of polluted air. :)
Except on unusually clear days the Kibby towers will be fuzzy and indistinct. IN an ideal world I would choose energy conservation over the blighting of wild mountains.
Facing reality, I choose to personally battle only those wind power projects that clearly do major damage to national scenic trails and other scenic resources of equal or greater merit.
Weary
Distance is a great shield -- especially in these days of polluted air. :)
Weary
You sure got that right !
WalkinHome
01-28-2007, 15:12
According to the Maine Sunday Telegram (28 Jan 2007) there are now 28 windmills on Mars Hill Mountain. By the way, the power generated from the Mars Hill site is going to go to Canada. Great for Maine and the U.S. eh? It is also stated that Maine is ONE of Twenty states to have utility sized wind farms built last year. There is also another 44 turbine proposal up for approval. I think that it is time for the rest of the nation to step up and take some of these on don't you think? I think the coast of Mass. would be a nice windy place. Don't any other states have wind?
Great definition of NIMBY Weary!!
TJ aka Teej
01-28-2007, 18:04
I think the coast of Mass. would be a nice windy place. Don't any other states have wind?
Mitt Romney (R) Utah put an end to a proposed windpower project off Cape Cod when he was Massachusetts Gov. It was terrific project, many times more productive than the Reddington one, and right where it was needed. Its a real shame he took the side of the millionaires with ocean front homes instead of the needs of his state.
TREE-HUGGER
01-29-2007, 07:44
It is incredibly short sighted not to allow the project. We need Reddington and every other place on the entire globe that will actually make a difference in our energy consumption if we are going to keep pace with our current life style. I wonder how many of the opponents of this project are working hard to find alternative energy ?
sparky2000
01-29-2007, 08:09
Today, the courts have deceided to keep people out of the woods, also.
Today, the courts have deceided to keep people out of the woods, also.
Can you be a little more specific?
Heh heh. Funny how we put our conservation money behind the oil industry to help them defeat a clean, renewable energy source.
Maybe Big Business is right. We have plenty of oil and even more coal.
What's a little more acid- and mercury-rain among friends?
I"m all for clean energy, but wind power is a freaking scam. It's not about energy as much as it is about subsidies and tax breaks for the builder.
If we want to do something constructive let's phase out incandescent light bulbs and require all new homes to install solar energy production to be as self sustaining as possible.
terrapin_too
01-29-2007, 10:23
If we want to do something constructive let's phase out incandescent light bulbs and require all new homes to install solar energy production to be as self sustaining as possible.
I'm all for that. Watch the home-building industry howl if something like this was ever proposed as legislation.
4eyedbuzzard
01-29-2007, 11:26
I"m all for clean energy, but wind power is a freaking scam. It's not about energy as much as it is about subsidies and tax breaks for the builder.
If we want to do something constructive let's phase out incandescent light bulbs and require all new homes to install solar energy production to be as self sustaining as possible.
Like any other means of generating electrical power, the economics are largely ruled by what convertible power nature has provided at hand, and which is most economical to convert. Part of this economics is the value we assign to environmental impact. Solar is highly dependent upon latitude and weather situations. Active solar power collection/production just isn't currently economical most of the time given the life-cycle costs of these systems. Even passive solar design and achievable net gains can differ greatly at the same latitudes based upon locale, average ambients, cloud cover, etc. There are places wind power may well be the best option. One size doesn't fit all. Energy converted to electricity is energy taken from somewhere else in the greater environmental system.
TNSTAAFL - There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. EVERYTHING we do has an impact.
Phasing out incandescent lamps has been occuring for years - just not at the same rate in residences as it has in commercial/industrial lighting. There are many reasons for this, but by far the biggest one is frequency of use. A sodium vapor or metal halide fixture and lamp is extrememly expensive by comparison to an incandescent fixture/lamp delivering comparable lumens. In an application where the lights are used 24/7 the pay back is realized within a few years even without utility company incentives. Not so in a residence where much lighting is used sporadically and utility sponsored incentives are rarely offered. Compact flourescents are an option that has taken hold, they are pretty good for general illumination, but are often not suitable for task lighting. The cradle to grave ecological impact of HID and fluorescent lighting systems is also higher than that of incandescents.
WalkinHome
01-29-2007, 12:40
It is incredibly short sighted not to allow the project. We need Reddington and every other place on the entire globe that will actually make a difference in our energy consumption if we are going to keep pace with our current life style. I wonder how many of the opponents of this project are working hard to find alternative energy ?
IMHO Maybe more importantly (is that a word?) how about the proponents working hard to find alternative energy.
Jim Adams
01-29-2007, 13:57
According to the Maine Sunday Telegram (28 Jan 2007) there are now 28 windmills on Mars Hill Mountain. By the way, the power generated from the Mars Hill site is going to go to Canada. Great for Maine and the U.S. eh? It is also stated that Maine is ONE of Twenty states to have utility sized wind farms built last year. There is also another 44 turbine proposal up for approval. I think that it is time for the rest of the nation to step up and take some of these on don't you think? I think the coast of Mass. would be a nice windy place. Don't any other states have wind?
Great definition of NIMBY Weary!!
What makes you think that Canadian pollution stops at the border? Canada has several areas that are destroyed due to pollution especially around the Sudbury area. The weather from these areas blows down into New England most of the year.
geek
maine overproduces power and mars hill is already hooked into NB's grid so why wouldn't it go there? do you wanna build a bunch of powerlines across redington so that the power produced in mars hill gets to new york?
cape cod still has potential ;)
weary I totally disagree when you say this was a good project in a bad place... It was in a bad place and a bull---- project! The very same company that was for the reddington ridge project aka they were the ones behind it are owned by the same companies in the midwest that are burning fossil fuels in huge electric producing facilities and the simple fact of the matter is putting a few windmills on a ridge in maine is cheaper (and looks much better for the parent company) than using more money to clean up the fossil fuel burning plants (new air scrubbers etc) the latter (cleaning up the old facilities) would be much more productive as far as reducing their global footprint...
besides the point that it is right by the AT
and ski resorts aren't an eyesore... they do more to conserve the mountains around themselves than most people understand
weary I totally disagree when you say this was a good project in a bad place... It was in a bad place and a bull---- project! The very same company that was for the reddington ridge project aka they were the ones behind it are owned by the same companies in the midwest that are burning fossil fuels in huge electric producing facilities and the simple fact of the matter is putting a few windmills on a ridge in maine is cheaper (and looks much better for the parent company) than using more money to clean up the fossil fuel burning plants (new air scrubbers etc) the latter (cleaning up the old facilities) would be much more productive as far as reducing their global footprint...
besides the point that it is right by the AT
and ski resorts aren't an eyesore... they do more to conserve the mountains around themselves than most people understand
Well, I can't disagree, really. I was just suggesting that I'm not fighting against alternative energy -- just against $150 million industrial complex adjacent to the Appalachian Trail corridor.
Enough wind energy might reduce air pollution somewhat. This project by itself won't reduce emissions by measurable amounts, if at all.
The real incentive for building these things has nothing to do with energy, or environmental protection. They are just a gimmick for investors to write off profits in other projects, essentially making wind energy tax free. On top of this the government essentially pays the developer big money for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, and then gives the energy back to the developer to sell to the highest bidder.
It's a scam fostered by the good intentions of deluded and unthinking people who have fallen in love with the idea of "alternative energy."
Weary
I was agreeing with you so you don't have to say you can't dissagree... You just worded it much better than I did
haha
cheers
generoll
01-30-2007, 18:13
I think that it will be hard for the folks who claim to be enviromentalists to oppose this project and then try to sell the idea for someone else. It's rank hypocrisy to complain about alternative energy sources in your back yard and then propose it for someone else. How can you be taken seriously? Dunno what if anything the Sierra club had to say about this, but it seems to me that they've done as much as anyone to prevent the construction of nuclear power plants. This as much as anything has helped to fuel the growth of coal fired plants. If the self styled enviromentalists had supported this then they would have been on much stronger ground when they tried to encourage wind farms along the coast. As it is now, I wouldn't believe anything they said. Everyone is willing for someone else to make a sacrifice, no matter the goal. It's only when your own ox is in danger of being gored that the true cost is realized and in this case the opponents of this project showed how truly comitted they are to alternative energy.
terrapin_too
01-30-2007, 18:21
It's a scam fostered by the good intentions of deluded and unthinking people who have fallen in love with the idea of "alternative energy."
And I consider that remark condescending, insulting, and unworthy of you, Weary. Fact is, you've pulled every conceivable rationalization for opposing this project, all for the benefit of the "viewshed" of maybe a few hundred or a few thousand hikers who may in fact walk the affected part of the AT in any given year.
[quote=Jim Adams The weather from these areas blows down into New England most of the year.
geek[/quote]
They don't call New England "The tailpipe of the midwest" for nothing.
http://www.matlt.org
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1069716896045831896olVaJU
Nobody here would be for putting oil derricks at Chimney Pond if they discovered a large reserve of oil under Katahdin. So why is it shocking that most people didn't want to ruin Reddington with giant wind towers?
Honestly, we want to take the win power thing seriously - there is tons and tons and tons of perfect land out west for this. BLM land runs of millions of acres with virtually nothing as far as you can see. Its concievable to build wind farms that are barely visible from the road!
It doesn't make and sense to ruin a prestine area in the middle of the AT and several 4000 foot mountains.
It doesn't make and sense to ruin a prestine area in the middle of the AT and several 4000 foot mountains.Yup, he's right.
Here's an op ed that I submitted to one of the papers -- which they apparently aren't going to run.
Congratulations to LURC commissioners for upholding the rule of law in their rejection of the proposed wind energy complex on Redington and Black Nubble mountains.
The Land Use Regulation Commission was created three and a half decades ago to keep the wild places in Maine wild. The law says new developments must “fit harmoniously into the existing natural environment.” There is no exemption for wind power.
It’s hard to imagine a site more in violation of the clear language of the statute. Or for that matter, what wouldn’t comply if this industrial complex should somehow be upheld by the courts as permissible. The proposal envisioned 30 four-hundred-foot-high, lighted turbines, some located just a mile from a 2,000 mile long national scenic trail.
To suggest as many have done that commissioners violated the law is absurd. The representative of the Attorney General’s Department at the decision meeting tried to be polite to the LURC staff, but his essential message was that it would have been extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to sustain the staff recommendation for approval should it be challenged in the courts. His comments essentially said that the staff was wrong when it claimed in news reports that the Attorney General staff had given it’s okay to the draft.
A key opponent of the project was the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, a tiny organization dedicated to protecting the trail from encroachment. MATC hired the lead opposition lawyer and paid the technical experts, investing, with help from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, $180,000 of scarce funds to oppose the wind energy application...
MATC members clear the blow downs, bridge the bogs, and cut the brush that make the Maine section of the trail the envy of trail clubs up and down the Appalachian mountains. These are not wealthy, elitist, NIMBYs. No volunteer group in Maine does more hard, on the ground work. Last year 200 MATC members contributed 20,000 hours of volunteer work on behalf of the trail. Each of the several votes by these people who know the trail best has been unanimous in opposition.
Pamela Underhill, director of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, said it most eloquently, telling LURC commissioners:
“I’m here because protection of this unusual and wonder-inspiring unit of our national park system matters deeply to me, to the National Park Service and to millions of Americans. I’m here because ….it is a national treasure of immense proportion, and it is a gift to the American people – past, present and future – from the American people.”
She added, “the concerns of the National Park Service over the proposed Redington wind farm are based solely upon its location adjacent to one of the most remote and scenic sections of the Appalachian Trail. The National Park Service supports the development of renewable energy in appropriate locations with appropriate environmental protections. We have not opposed some half dozen proposed wind farms in some proximity to the Trail in locations where special Trail values would not be compromised.”
MATC also is not opposed to wind energy. Members voted just this month not to oppose the Kibby Mountain wind power proposal, though this project also would be visible from the trail.
Why? Members recognized, rightly, that there is a vast difference between an in-your-face industrial development on ridges abutting the narrow trail corridor, and proposals involving distant ridges.
Global warming is a real threat that this country must somehow recognize and combat. But a token wind project adjacent to the 2000-mile Appalachian Trail is not the place to start. The many miles along the open Saddleback ridge line and north through the twin Crocker Mountains rank among the wildest sections of the entire trail. The Redington/Black Nubble proposal would reverse that happy situation. The trail would overnight become among the most developed sections.
There are many ways to combat global warming. The most critical is conservation. No amount of wind energy will be sufficient. We must somehow reduce our wasteful ways. The true NIMBYs are not those that would protect a national treasure. Rather they are those who are too lazy and selfish to make the slight effort needed to conserve. The NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Please remember, that it is still not necessary to destroy the last wild places in order to save our planet.
TJ aka Teej
01-31-2007, 15:04
The NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Hear him! Well done, Bob.
generoll
01-31-2007, 18:49
keep in mind whay the acronym NIMBY means. just as a refresher it stands for "not in my backyard". you can criticize and rightly so those who will not conserve, but after all is said and done we are still a nation of nearly 300 million people and it is impractical to imagine that we can solve our contribution to global warming (about 25% of total emissions I think) and our reliance on imported fossil fuels simply by changing lightbulbs. Even if we changed the building codes today (and some communities have) are you going to tear down all the millions of existing dwellings and build new? who pays? it's a sad day for alternative energy when pseudo enviromentalists oppose an alternative energy site.
Mr. Clean
02-01-2007, 04:27
The LURC commisioners made the right choice. They are entrusted to keep the State of maine wild. We try to keep it that way, and everyone wants to come and see it. It must be good. Maine needs no extra power, so why ruin our "wildness" and send it somewhere else? And as to decreasing fossil fuel use, this farm is a drop in a bucket and I believe would do nothing to help. There is a wind site planned for nearby Kibby mtn; I would agree to build one there for all the reasons that proponents state, and being green-minded, I have nothing against wind power. I welcome it. But to line out-of-State pockets on the destruction of an incredibly beautiful area goes against what Maine is. Remember the sign you encounter in the Mahoosucs? "Maine, the way life should be?" It's a strong feeling here. Redington seems to be over; fine. Lets move on and find a site like Kibby that we can find middle ground on. And I still welcome wind sites on the coast...