I find this topic to be fascinating. It's a convergence of some major issues (climate change, economic policy, conservation, etc). It seems as though there are people who dislike the idea of these windmills for any number of reasons relating to those issues.
Climate change arguments tend to devolve into epistemological debates so I'll set those aside.
As for economic policy, I agree with Creag that wind energy will be part of the future regardless, but I'm not certain that removal of all subsidies is warranted. I feel as though subsidies should only be used as an incentive to steer people towards prosocial behaviors that wouldn't happen quickly (or at all) otherwise; I don't think it should be a prop to support the industry in perpetuity. Weather the current system is set-up to do that effectively, I am not sure (and would welcome any input to help clarify this). This particular debate also appears to be rooted in ideology instead of objectivity.
As for the conservation piece, I find this most fascinating. It seems to me that there is a 'NIMBY' component, as most argument I read related to windmills are specific to a particular project, not against them in general. Perhaps there are people here with views to these towers in Berlin that also have a strong opinion about the Cape Wind project, but I don't generally see that type of connection made. This isn't to say that local concerns aren't valid of course, but just to say that from my perspective the conservation concerns seems to be local in nature - which makes sense! I have no issue with locals wanted a strong say in how their communities are affected. The only issue I have is that sometimes it seems like a disingenuous argument. When I stand atop a mountain and look out, I might notice the windmills, sure. I'll also notice the roads, and houses, and all the other signs of development that come with a society. If a particular area has special value then it should absolutely be protected, but I feel that should be the basis of the conservation argument.
