David Gibson, executive director of The Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, agreed that the ecological treasures New York could lose in the wake of wind farm construction and operation are too great to risk just for the generation of green power.

"We all, everyone in this room probably, are committed to moving us toward a more sustainable path," Gibson said. "We all want clean, green, much more friendly habits, but we don't think tall industrial structures on ridge lines anywhere is good public policy."

The focused, contemplating eyes of more than 100 Adirondack residents never left the Tannery Pond Community Center stage Wednesday evening during a public forum on wind power.

Seats creaked as people with gray hair -- and even those with pigtails -- leaned forward to listen to four panel members expressing opinions both for and against the proposed Barton Mines project to build 10 wind turbines on the northern side of Gore Mountain.

When the panel's members quieted, the audience erupted into an organized procession of questions that put the experts under the spotlight of a collective, earnest interest to know more -- and to know why.

One man, for instance, demanded to know why John Sheehan, director of communications for the Adirondack Council, thought biomass was a better green energy alternative to fossil fuels like coal and gasoline than wind power.

Burning wood chips or plant matter to generate energy releases carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the man said. Why would you cut down the trees and burn them? After all, they can't continue absorbing carbon dioxide and taking it out of the air if they're not there, he said.

Sheehan responded by explaining that he wasn't talking about clear-cutting Adirondack woodlands.

"We'd still have the forest -- the organ left behind. Its neighbors would pick up its slack as they grow into its space," he said of individual trees that would be harvested. "Emissions from the (processing) plant and those absorbed by the trees would even out."

Sheehan spoke against the Barton project, giving examples of other energy choices the park could make, because he and the Adirondack Council believe wind turbines would disfigure the wildly beautiful face for which the Adirondack Mountains are cherished.

To drive his point home, he brought up the hydro dams that have been built in the park to generate clean energy.

Reservoirs now cover many important historical sites, rivers were dammed, and fisheries were drained, Sheehan said gravely. "Let's not kid ourselves that it (clean energy) was free -- that we didn't pay for it one way or another."

David Gibson, executive director of The Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, agreed that the ecological treasures New York could lose in the wake of wind farm construction and operation are too great to risk just for the generation of green power.

"We all, everyone in this room probably, are committed to moving us toward a more sustainable path," Gibson said. "We all want clean, green, much more friendly habits, but we don't think tall industrial structures on ridge lines anywhere is good public policy."

The main reason Gibson gave for his agency's position revolves around statutes limiting or prohibiting industrial development and alteration of the landscape within the park.

"It's right in our state constitution -- not only forever wild -- but the policy to preserve and protect the natural beauty," Gibson said. "Article 14 is why we have an Adirondack Park. We think this proposal compromises too much of the park's legal protection."

Jim McAndrew, vice president of strategic projects for the Barton Group, disagreed that the company's project would set a bad precedent for development in the park, or compromise the natural beauty of the area.

The site on the northern side of Gore, which hasn't been used to mine garnet for 20 years, already has roads, power lines and windy weather, McAndrew said. It's also already zoned for industrial use, which is rare in the park.

"This project would be built with very little additional disturbance," he added.

McAndrew also pointed out that Barton wouldn't be the only entity benefiting from the wind farm and its 27 megawatt production power.

"It's 10 times what Barton Mines uses in a year," he said. "We could power Barton plus the ski area and most of the surrounding communities' households."

Besides the farm's potential to decrease the North Creek area's dependence on electricity generated from fossil fuels, McAndrew also believes the farm could act as an educational destination for vacationers.

"This project would promote tourism," he said.

"In other places where wind projects have been built, the wind projects have been an attraction."

The panel's final member, Tom Tuffey of PennFuture in Pennsylvania, didn't address tourism potential, but he did stress the uniqueness of the Barton site.

Because it's already disturbed and the land has already been altered by heavy industry, he said, the mine is a good place for a 10-turbine farm that would do much less damage than has already been done.

"It's probably unique in New York state," he said.

Though none of Tuffey's fellow panel members explicitly brought up a concern for the number of birds that would be killed by turbine blades, he addressed that issue as well.

"I would predict four birds per year per turbine. That's the average on the East Coast," he said. "That little kitty cat you have at home does a lot more damage."