Light, Wind….and Trees?

This week, the Town Council and the Planning Commission will once again take up two red-hot issues – light pollution and wind turbines. Go to Clerkbase for the agendas.

On Wednesday, June 22^nd, the Planning Commission will look at another draft of the proposed anti-lighting ordinance. This June 9^th draft is only a little over five pages long. It adds the missing enforcement component that prompted my earlier criticism. The building inspector will be responsible for enforcement of the ordinance, although the ordinance is still vague about how that will be done. E.g. “[the building inspector] shall have the ability to assign penalties for non-compliance.”

It also seems to me that the specifications for new lighting are described in more practical and understandable terms. The grand-father period for existing lighting is set at 10 years from enactment.

The next day, Thursday, June 23^rd, the Town Council holds a special meeting on site at Ninigret Park at the location for the meteorological testing tower for the proposed municipal wind turbine project – the one that the Town Council has already effectively killed.

This little session is part of the town’s continuing charade of pretending to support alternative energy while effectively making sure that wind energy projects in town will never happen, The town’s moratorium on wind energy projects has already caused the town to lose federal funding to build the municipal turbines - and they are just not going to be built without that funding.

The town has already ruled out commercial wind turbines. Only turbines for the use on an owner’s property (no extra energy to pump into the grid) are allowed. They must be less than 200 feet high and under 100 kV with a 3 to 1 setback. So if you want to build a 100 foot high turbine, it must be at least 300 feet from your property line in all directions (requiring a minimum of just over 2 acres). A 200 foot turbine would require 600 feet clearance in every direction, a minimum of 9.5 acres square.

And you must meet every other specification, including proof that the turbine will not bother your neighbors with noise, flicker or who know what else.

Instead of this farce, I have challenged the Council to ban all turbines outright if they really and truly believe all the anti-wind fringe propaganda about the dangers of wind.

Which brings me to trees. First, a pop quiz:

1. Worldwide, how many neighbors and bystanders have been killed by falling wind turbines, including any debris?
2. How many people, just in the United States, have been killed by trees knocked over in storms?

 

The answer to Question #1 is ZERO - nobody has been killed by these terrifying wind turbines anywhere in the world. There was one instance where a novice German sky-diver on her first jump fell into a turbine and was killed. 

On the other hand, the Tree Care Industry Association (formerly the National Arborist Association) reports 407 people were killed in the United States by trees felled by storms between 1995 and 2007. They say that 53% of fatalities during tornadoes, hurricanes, snow & ice storms and severe thunderstorms are caused by falling trees. Seven people were killed by falling trees just in the recent Arkansas tornados alone.

Yes, there have been industrial fatalities from the manufacture, transport and assembly of wind turbines, but before you even go there, forestry has the second highest fatality rate (behind fishing) among all industries.

Look in your own backyards to see the menace lurking there. Our house is surrounded by tall, second growth oaks. They tower over our house and yard. They loom over our neighbors’ yards – as their trees loom over ours. Every year, storms drop at least two or three of our trees – nice for firewood, but bad for heads and limbs as well as our house if they fall in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hey, Town Council, the fact is Charlestown's many trees are not only one of our town’s greatest treasures, but pose perhaps a greater threat to life than speeding tourist traffic. Where’s our protection? When will do we see you enact a 3-1 set-back for trees? Or height limits? And where the hell is the tree warden and the tree committee when we need them to protect us?

And where are all those nuts who jumped up and down over the supposed or imaginary risks of wind turbines on the subject of death from trees? Do we wait for arboreal Armageddon or a herbaceous holocaust before we do something?

And consider the side benefits of a new 3-1 tree setback, besides all the firewood. Fewer leaves to rake. And less leaf litter means fewer ticks. And more sunlight for gardening. Now that's what I call a win-win-win.

No form of energy comes without risk or cost. Every day, in every decision we make, we are confronted with choices where we compare the risks versus the benefits and then decide what we consider to be acceptable.

We have been going through a period of hysteria over wind energy that, frankly, does Charlestown no credit. I don’t really want to impose a three-to-one setback on trees anymore than I want to see unreasonable, if not downright ridiculous, restrictions on alternative energy.

Let’s grow up, face facts. Let’s make decisions based on a grown-up assessment of risks and benefits and leave the loony stuff for the kids.

Author: Will Collette