Letter: How Grafton Protected Itself
To the Editor:
I read your Oct. 31 article regarding the changes to Iberdrola’s Wild Meadows industrial wind complex proposal. A reporter left a message the day before at 1:40 p.m. regarding the press release I submitted. When I returned home at 6:35, I made several attempts to reach her, but only got her voicemail. I feel the need to try to bring some balance to the very slanted article.
First of all, industrial wind complexes are not farms. Farms are where living things are raised such as crops and livestock. Seeds are planted and new lives are born. Industrial wind complexes are made of concrete and metal and destroy nature and wildlife habitats in order to be constructed. After they’re up and running, they kill and maim bats and birds. The health effects on humans from high- and low-frequency sound waves can be so debilitating that some are forced to abandon their homes.
The quote attributed to me in the article didn’t include the statement that immediately followed: “I’d suggest any towns currently or potentially being targeted by industrial wind companies contact (the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund) immediately and find out how to protect themselves like the brave citizens of Grafton did.” Over 150 of these types of ordinances are in place in the U.S. on numerous topics, but all put the rights of citizens and essential ecosystems above corporate rights. In Nottingham, N.H., a similar ordinance has prevented a bottling company from draining the town’s aquifer. We’re not alone in taking back our rights, and momentum is building across the state, New England, the country and the world.
Edward Cherian, representing Iberdrola, has said several times that Iberdrola would not force the project on any town that didn’t want it, yet Grafton’s the only town that was removed in the revised proposal. Alexandria also voted in March against the turbine invasion. The only thing different in Grafton is the ordinance we passed establishing our right to determine our own energy future and self-governance. How could one not come to the conclusion that it was the ordinance that prompted Iberdrola to change the proposed footprint of destruction?