Maybe all this infighting in the environmental community has produced a compromise on siting wind and solar power projects. 

No industrial renwable power in natural areas, unless those installations are temporary and a portion of the energy generated goes to remediate land around the wind farms already devestated by agriculture and industry... actually returning destroyed areas to a natural state.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/1/18/105422/981#2

  How much earth destruction does a particular human activity entail?  

Modifying a human  activity (such as home heating or transportation) to conserve energy should have the same (or maybe a greater) emphasis as powering that activity with green energy.

Most up to date comparisons indicate that the initial cost of wind is higher than coal or natural gas fueled generation capacity.  An independent, unbiased scietific study (with no industry funding or control)of the latest projects ought to be done.  

I think that otherpower.com, the do-it-yourself home wind power builders have attained the lowest intial cost and cost per kwh, with good old fashioned low tech cooperation between friends and neighbors.

As you say the main advantage to wind is zero fuel input.  Wind and solar are nuclear powered, but the reactor, the fuel, and the waste are 93 million miles away, in the sun, where they belong.

An antique Jacob's wind electric machine, running since the 30s, is probably the cost per kwh leader.  (Too low to meter...as the nuclear industry used to tout in the 50s.) Due to the advantage of not needing fuel decade after decade, all that free wind adds up.

It looks like solar panels that simultaneously generate elecricity and heating/cooling capacity covering the average sized home roof, parking area, and southern exposure coupled with a small wind system (under 12 ft in diameter) can produce enough power to equal the per capita personal energy use of the average american.

And enough capacity to power public and commercial buildings, manufacturing, and commercial transportation can be obtained with solar and wind installed on public buildings,at commercial, farming, and industrial sites and over parking lots.

No wilderness land need be utilized.  

In fact an environmental  program ought to be adopted that establishes a 40 year permit for industrial wind that includes remediation of the land around wind plants (don't call 'em "turbines", "plants" are bird friendly).

 If farming or industrial uses have destroyed it, the 40 year time period could be used to restore  the cropland around the machines into a nature conservation area.  In the case of industrial pollution, extra peak wind energy that would normally go to waste can be used to operate compressors that could power filtration systems that would trap and eventually eliminate toxic waste.

A small tax on the wind powered electricity ought to be reserved to retire and recycle the wind machines and the site after the 40 year period is up.  Then that remediated land can stay a natural area.

And no wind machines need to be installed where they interfere with  natural vistas like the ones near the Cape Cod area.  There is more than enough area already devestated by human abuse to meet our energy needs.