May 21, 2010

All,

Mass Audubon supports the proposed Wind Energy Bill which would override the ability of
towns – like Wellfleet – to determine whether they really want to live side by side with an
industrial wind turbine – or ten – or fifty. Instead of local review, a State Review Board would
have the final say and any appeals would be extremely limited. What this means, in practice,
since the Review Board will doubtless promptly be politicized, is that if you get a bunch of
nincompoops or wind energy ideologues on the Board (and we can all name a few), they’ll be
bringing industrial wind turbines to your town – whether you like it or not.

Thanks for nothing, Mass Audubon!

First, they supported Cape Wind – subject to receiving a lucrative contract to study the adverse
impacts and potential “mitigation” of these effects – even though their own feasibility report for
the proposed wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary states that there is simply “no reliable
method” to predict the damage to birds and bats. Does Mass Audubon think that the developers
are going to rip them out if they start clucking that the bird kills are a bit “too high”? Do they
think that the developers are actually going to set aside a “reserve” – more “thoughtful and
responsible” pie in the sky, wishful thinking by Mass Audubon -- to dismantle the whole project
if it’s an ecological nightmare? Really?

Thanks for nothing, Mass Audubon!

Then, they couldn’t bring themselves to say that putting an industrial wind turbine in the heart of
a national park – a conservation area – might actually be “inappropriate” – despite the service of
their Chief Scientist, Dr. Taber Allison, on the Federal Advisory Committee on Wind Turbine
Guidelines, whose multiple drafts consistently say that the cardinal rule is not to put wind
turbines in conservation preserves or other “inappropriate” areas. Could someone please call Dr.
Allison and ask him why he bothered to help write the rules if his organization doesn’t have the
backbone to insist – or even to suggest -- that they be followed in its own backyard?

For that matter, could someone please ask the “thoughtful” and “balanced” folks at Mass
Audubon why, if the National Parks Conservation Association had no trouble concluding that
industrial wind turbines don’t belong in national parks or migratory flyways; and if the former
Chairman of the Wellfleet Energy Committee, Griswald Draz could be courageous and
principled enough to resign promptly -- last November -- as soon as he appreciated the terrible
consequences for the national park from the turbine; and if even Jim Sexton – yes, Jim Sexton,
the founder of the six year old project – could finally declare that he “could no longer support the
project” once he learned how disruptive the chronic noise would actually be; if all of these folks
could ultimately grasp the obvious harm of such a project, why then would Mass Audubon issue
a press statement – at Bob Prescott’s instigation -- saying that they couldn’t possibly formulate
an opinion on this one until they counted all of the box turtles and the salamander eggs – even
though they knew that the “Wildlife Impact” studies would not be completed until AFTER the
Chairman of the Energy Committee planned to seek authorization from voters to spend $6
million on the project.

Thanks for nothing, Mass Audubon!

Now, Mass Audubon is using its political muscle to try to gain passage of this miserable bill in
support of a fundamentally bad idea that is probably unconstitutional (under Mass law) to boot!
Thanks again, Mass Audubon! But with friends like you in the conservation movement, who
needs enemies?

Here is what you should all do:

TEAR UP YOUR MASS AUDUBON MEMBERSHIP CARDS AND SEND THEM TO BOB
PRESCOTT WITH A LETTER EXPRESSING YOUR DISMAY.

There are plenty of other conservation organizations out there who are doing admirable work –
and who are not so befuddled that they can’t remember who they are or what purpose its
members intended it to serve.

Ask Bob Prescott how many wind mills, and how many square miles of land, it would take to
replace one conventional or nuclear power plant producing 1 gigawatt of power (at least 2000
windmills spread over 200 square miles). And after we carpet 200 square miles with 2000
industrial wind turbines – to replace one plant – where should we put the next 2000?

How many tens of thousands should we build? Where should we put them? Where will we find
all of that land that nobody cares about and that has no conservation value – and where no people
live – but which is close enough to population centers that actually need the power?

Ask Bob -- since Mass Audubon is all over this issue and has surely done their homework -- how
many thousands of square miles of land Mass Audubon thinks that it would be appropriate to
squander – in the name of conservation?

Tell you what – I’ll send a copy of this letter to all the good people at Mass Audubon, including
Bob Prescott, a notorious apologist for the Wellfleet wind turbine project; and to Jennifer Ryan
and Jack Clarke who are roaming the halls of the Massachusetts legislature at this very moment,
urging passage of this miserably offensive “solution” to global warming – because it’s so
“balanced” and so brilliant; and to Dr. Allison, who is probably a well-meaning fellow -- but
who, despite his obvious accomplishments, somehow can’t understand that the “voluntary
guidelines” that he helped to author are worse than useless if the influential organization that he
works for doesn’t have the nerve to point out that it might be “inappropriate” to build an
industrial wind turbine in the heart of a national park – literally across the street from the
Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary where Dr. Allison himself deemed it unacceptable to build a much
smaller windmill! What on earth does Dr. Allison think that a commercial developer is going do
with his “voluntary guidelines” if a national park superintendent considers them to be irrelevant?

Just send them the confetti from your membership cards – please! And tell all of your friends to
do the same. Support a bona fide conservation organization that doesn’t believe that destroying
tens of thousands of acres of habitat by supporting mass implementation of industrial wind
energy – a futile technology that provides almost no meaningful benefit – is an urgent national
priority.

Eric Bibler