I've always appreciated wind power. While growing up, both Ramona and I had windmills on our home places; Ramona's pumped water and generated electricity. And we recently installed a small wind-powered pump on our ranch. Now I see an important educational opportunity. It compellingly demonstrates the importance and ubiquity of trade-offs. No honest, responsible Green can ignore this lesson with impunity.

Wind energy is a favorite environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels for Greens. This is especially true in the abstract, i.e., when others pay for it and when it doesn't disturb their viewsheds or shred migrating birds.

Federal tax credits for renewable energy encourage companies like Cape Wind Associates, which plans a wind farm in Nantucket Sound. But this has the International Wildlife Coalition, the Humane Society, and the Ocean Conservancy up in arms. These groups and others protest for the safety of birds, whales, dolphins, seals, and…the race course for the annual Hyannis-Nantucket Regatta.

Another conservation group, the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC), is fighting a proposed wind farm in Maine. Endless Energy Company wants to construct a series of windmills for electricity production. However, they are in direct view of a scenic section of the Trail. ATC fears the project would radically change the area's views, plant and animal habitats, and land conservation potential.

The 330-foot towers would be visible for about four days of hiking on the Trail. ATC warns that "during the day, their whirling blades would appear to crawl across the mountains, and at night, their strobe beacons…would bring an unwelcome human presence into the remote wilderness." This is the trade-off for generating "green" power.

Numerous similar cases show that when faced with the reality of wind farms, many so-called environmental groups turn against this "clean" energy source. It seems no movement is immune to hypocrisy when its interests are threatened.

NIMBY environmentalism is turning on itself; the zeitgeist bites back. Unwilling to face the necessary trade-offs, some Greens become hypocrites, i.e., they advocate nonpolluting energy sources and pristine landscapes, clean air and protected habitat, but protest when their aesthetics are assaulted by the technology they claim to promote. Trade-offs are inescapable. Admit it and deal with it honestly.

Wind power is a particularly revealing issue. By forcing environmentalists to choose between clean energy or habitat and wilderness, it makes them prioritize their goals. It's easy to demand all these environmental "goods" when lobbying the government for regulations and subsidies. But these actions have costs and consequences in the real world. Because wind farms are not free of environmental impacts, Greens must choose some ends over others. Compromise is necessary.

Large-scale wind power is neither pollution-free nor, given current technology, cost-effective. Because the wind doesn't blow constantly, some other generating facility must be ready to provide energy when the windmills don't. "Dirty" fossil fuel-fired plants usually accomplish this. (Nuclear power is looking more attractive. It already provides 70 percent of Vermont’s electricity.)

The DOE admits, "While the cost of wind power is decreasing, it is still more expensive to produce relative to electricity from existing, large coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric power plants." Most new wind projects are developed "because of the availability of federal tax credits and incentive payments to municipal utilities for wind energy."

Let's look at our region. Back in 1983 the Montana legislature acted as though the state was rich and would always wallow in money. Believing federal subsidies weren't enough, they began offering state tax credits equal to 35 percent of the costs of purchasing, installing, or upgrading wind energy generating equipment and infrastructure. Despite declining revenues, the Montana legislature expanded this in 2001 to cover all "alternative" energy sources. Although Montana is ranked fifth in the contiguous US for potential wind energy (at 116,000 megawatts), there is only one existing wind farm. It produces a mere 0.1 megawatt vs. 128 megawatts for the average fossil fuel-powered plant in Montana. As usual, subsidies have failed.

No energy source is environmentally costless. Even wind power requires large tracts of land and has adverse impacts on habitat, wildlife, and wilderness. Environmentally sound energy choices recognize the costs and competing values involved. There is no way to honestly avoid making the necessary trade-offs.