Being from Maine I wouldn't try to compare wind energy to fossil fuels - the numbers there are solid. I'd examine biomass, of which we have plenty and if harvested with proper silviculture can actually improve the state of the forest. I'd guess wind is still a better CO2 strategy than biomass, though maybe not with co-gen, where the low-pressure steam can be used to heat the plant and drive dry-kilns at sawmills and digesters at pulp mills. I've read the Manomet analysis on biomass, years ago so I may be fuzzy on the details. IIRC, the report said it would take something like 81 years for an acre cleared for biomass to sequester the amount of carbon that was removed. Of course, if one had 81 acres and harvested one per year, the equation would change. (Or if one conducted a light partial harvest and chipped only the tops and limbs that made to to the logyard.)
This is in no wise a knock on wind power. I especially hope that turbines off the coast of Maine, where the wind is steadier, can be a big part of the energy future.