Mark

Jim Kotcon is a very polite guy, and both courteous and elegant in his communications. I would rather open your eyes. 

First, the easy one.  Carbon offsets are, by definition, required only of energy generated by sources relying up a carbon based fuel, like coal, petroleum, natural gas, and other fossil fuels (methane, butane, propane, the list goes on). 

Wind, which is roughly 90% nitrogen and 10% oxygen, has no carbon content.  There is no predicate, therefore, for requiring a "carbon" offset.  That would be making green energy sources offset the damage caused by other, non-green energy sources.  That makes no sense as a matter of public policy. Period.

View shed issues are more difficult.  They are inherently subjective.  What upsets one, pleases another, or may leave them indifferent.  I am largely indifferent to wind turbines; I don't think of them as visual phenomena any more than I assess the aesthetics of an Exxon station when I pull into a gas station to fill up my gas tank (lacking as I do an electric car that could be charged at night by electricity generated by a wind turbine or solar panel).

It's true, wind turbines frequently, if not always, require trees to be cut down.  So does toilet paper, in significantly greater numbers....what did the wise man say?  DETOGT (don't even think of going there).  If you wanna see a LOT of trees cut down go look at the 10,000 acre wasteland that surrounds Kayford Mountain, 20 miles south of Charleston, the legacy of a fifteen year, ongoing mountain top removal project. 

At the same time  I find the visual image of thousands of 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 year-old soldiers -- returning to the United States in caskets -- upsetting.  Very god damned upsetting.   I blame the fact that we are now engaged in wars in three countries in the Middle East on the fact that the oil companies were able to prevail upon  their fraudulently elected  lap dogs to embark on a war in Iraq primarily -- if not exclusively -- to control Iraqi oil fields.  And that was not done as a "favor" to US citizens; it was the war crime known as aggressive war.

I also react negatively (yeah, angry, exasperated, pissed off, pick any phrase you like, they all fit) when serious efforts to end American economic imperialism, and the squandering of environmental resources, are frustrated by misguided efforts -- however well intended -- to obstruct increases in domestically generated, and environmentally sustainable, energy sources.  Like wind turbines.

There are no risk or cost free choices in life.  Either we continue to purchase (and steal) tremendous volumes of foreign crude oil, or we produce energy here in volumes sufficient to substitute for it.  Or, even more difficult, we embark on the virtually impossible political task of persuading people to dramatically reduce their life styles. 

A footnote:  China's per capita ownership of automobiles right now is about where the US's per capita ownership was in, buckle your seat belt, 1906.  They are not going to accept that as a standard of living; they not about to reduce anything.  They are going to  increase vehicular use, geometrically.  And there are 1.2 billion Chinese.  Ditto for 1 billion residents of India, who in fact have a faster growing population.  Either we find a way -- worldwide -- to generate electricity for electric cars, and simultaneously avoid both coal and petroleum, or we're going to be literally underwater.  And the population displacements caused by rising sea levels will wreck civilization as we know it.

Should we encourage on a wholesale basis conservation in every possible way?  Of course, from the use of efficient appliances and cars, to constructing efficient buildings, and lighting them with compact flourescent lights (or better yet, even more efficient by several orders of magnitude, LED's, which hopefully with mass production will drop dramatically in price).  Yes, all of these are desperately needed.  But energy use is still going to go up, not down, under any realistic scenario. 

So we have got to find additional energy sources that don't require delivery routes guaranteed by the Pentagon's Central Command, or the generation of unlimited amounts of CO2.

If you start out recognizing that 50-55% of electricity in this country is generated from coal, and that a very substantial majority of petroleum is imported, it becomes very difficult to find realistic alternative fuels in any volume that offers relief from either of those problems.

Wind and solar, in vast quantities, are the only candidates for substitution, although many serious environmentalists now advocate greatly increased use of nuclear power.  Got any thoughts on that alternative? 

Some advocate greatly increased use of natural gas, which has its own environmental problems related to water use (at least in the largest domestic discovery known as the Marcellus Shale), and only cuts the carbon generation by about half of that generated from coal. But there's lots of it.  Wanna punch holes all over Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and parts of Virginia?  There are gas exploration companies dying to enlist your support.

So don't get me wrong.  It's good you're thinking about this stuff, and it's laudable that you make decisions based on principal.  But trust me when I tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter the Sierra Club from aggressively pursuing realistic energy and environmental solutions.

If you want to impact policy -- whether of the US or the Sierra Club -- you need to answer the question of what alternative offers any prospect for relief from our dilemmas.  When you find an answer better than wind turbines, call us.  We'll waive your dues to get back in.

Seeya.

Bill
 --
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo@gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb@mountain.net> wrote:
Dear Jim
Without a plan that mandates a cut in carbon for every Turbine built 
We will only be just adding a new source of power without reducing the current input 
and future inputs of carbon 
I can see that a turbine might offset slightly the power needed to generate but we have no comprehensive plan
that cut emissions as we add generation
AND MY OBJECTION is directly linked to the endorsement of what I see as a  DAMAGING 
installation of giant turbines on our southeastern ridges
I THING THE WV SC NEEDS TO BE MORE SELECTIVE IN THEIR ENDORSEMENT 
for this is just a shell game for the GREEN CREDITS might just bring us more pollution 
in the future
Mark

On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:33 PM, James Kotcon wrote:

Mark:

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of wind farms.  By their very nature, wind farms generate electricity that offsets carbon emissions.  I am aware of some wind opponents who deny that this is true, but the hard data make it very clear that wind offsets fossil fuel emissions.  While it is not a 100 % kilowatt for kilowatt offset, it is still one of the least carbon-emitting sources of energy available.

I also recognize that the scenic impact is a concern, but that is an issue that should be handled by county planning ordinances.  I would have no object to a scenic restriction on windfarms if it also applied to coal-fired power plants, transmission lines, ski resorts and second home development.  But to restrict one type of development, in this case wind, is to indirectly subsidize fossil fuel power instead.  There is no perfect source of energy, but any objective evaluation would have to conclude that wind is cleaner than most.

I also have no objection to compensating the parties affected by energy generation, but this rule has to be applied to all power sources.  As long as it is required of wind farms but not coal mines or power plants, it becomes, again, an indirect subsidy for coal and a barrier to the cleaner sources we claim to want.

I agree that there are adverse impacts to some birds and bats, but there is no credible evidence that this has an adverse effect on the "populations".  Until we can compare the effect of a wind farm against the impacts of a strip mine, there is no basis for singling out one energy source for additional restrictions, but allow other energy sources to operate without restriction.

The Sierra Club would be easily dismissed if we oppose every form of energy.  We need a more rational energy policy to get support from a majority of Americans.  We do not support every wind farm application, but we also would not be credible if we opposed them all.

I hope you will reconsider your membership.  Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this in more detail.

Jim Kotcon, Chair
Energy Committee
304-293-8822 (office)
304-594-3322 (home)

P.S.  We are currently compiling a subcommittee of Club members to review additional wind farm permit applications in West Virginia.  Let me know if you are interested in being part of that evaluation.

Mark Blumenstein <markb@mountain.net> 8/12/2009 4:11 PM >>>

Since the WV SC has taken a position on wind turbines on our historic
ridges in WV especially without WITHOUT a carbon offset
I will not be renewing my membership.
Wind turbines have their place but cutting down mountaintops  and  
deforesting ridgetops
and forever changing our historic ridges in eastern WV in site of  
farms and families
WITHOUT any compensation to the effected parties is a poor decision   
and  these poorly located  devices are BAT and Migrant Bird Killers

I believe THE  WV & NATIONAL SIERRA CLUB should reevaluate their  
position

If this only reaches the membership committee in this email I wish  
for you to pass along
this those that make policy

Mark Blumenstein
HC 73 BX 11
Alderson WV 24910

ps. I think Whale Wars has shown that action not banners change policy
Stop the Whaling by stopping the Whalers!



Mark  Blumenstein
HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910
304 445 7822







Mark  Blumenstein

HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910

304 445 7822

http://www.markblumenstein.com

 markb@mountain.net