I want to continue the educational and civil dialogue started by Henry Stephenson in the recent issue of the Gazette in response to our POINT (Protect Our Islands Now for Tomorrow) newspaper advertisement. His thoughtful and well-written letter deserves to be taken seriously and responded to in kind.

Mr. Stephenson agrees with POINT that the public trust doctrine needs to be complied with. He states that we should work to insure that profits to developers are capped and that the benefits go to the people of the region.

We at POINT feel that while the public trust doctrine needs to be complied with, it is not enough to cap profits — which hasn’t even been proposed by the governor or Secretary Bowles. As to costs, as taxpayers we will get the first jolt and then as rate payers, we will get the balance.

Mr. Stephenson agrees with us that wind projects receive massive government subsidies. He equates that to environmental damage caused by strip mining and the costs of the Gulf oil spill and the cost of foreign wars. Point is not opposed to government subsidies — it is opposed to subsidies that don’t actually solve the problem for which they were created.

Further, he concedes that more wind power doesn’t reduce reliance on foreign (or domestic) oil, saying that serious conservation should be our most important energy policy — ”otherwise we are simply throwing good energy after bad, no matter where it comes from.”

POINT agrees! Conservation must receive more than lip service. Serious money, public if necessary, must be found to retrofit inefficient energy usage.

Until new technologies are identified, only atomic energy is reliably available to generate electricity without increasing global warming, and it has its own dangers.

Wind is too costly, too inefficient, too wasteful of resources, too harmful in proximity to people. Its use allows politicians to appear to be concerned and doing something when what they are really doing is enriching their friends and campaign contributors.

We know that land-based turbines impose harsh penalties on affected neighbors, making them, in Mr. Stephenson’s words — very problematic.

The best we can say about offshore turbines is if, in spite of their inefficiencies and costs we are going to be required to have them, may they be kept far away from us.

So far that they won’t affect the bird migrations, our economy as a tourist destination, our environment, our commercial fishing. So far that the only detriment will be their extraordinary cost.

Most importantly, Mr. Stephenson agrees with POINT on the need to do bird migration studies before any permits may be considered and on the importance not only to the Wampanoags but to all of us of the adverse impact on the environment, land, views, wildlife, and peace and quiet that these projects will have.

So it appears that Mr. Stephenson and POINT are in substantial agreement.

Andrew Goldman is director of POINT. He lives in Chilmark.