Well, where are we? A draft decision from the Public Service Board has ruled against a high-profile wind project in East Haven. At town meeting this month, communities voted against wind power projects in Manchester, Londonderry, and Sutton. But earlier in the year Sheffield citizens approved the same project that Sutton just voted down. Gov. Jim Douglas is firm in his view that industrial-scale wind turbines are not suitable for state land, yet the Vermont Legislature declined a suggested moratorium on wind power projects throughout the state.

This swirl of contradicting positions might appear confusing, but I think widespread ambivalence about wind power shouldn't come as a surprise. And we needn't worry that it signals that Vermonters are selfish or oblivious to the growing dangers of climate change. More likely, we're not yet convinced that our energy picture is dire enough to justify a no-holds-barred rush to develop Vermont's ridgelines.

Vermonters have carefully protected our landscape over the years, through personal stewardship, local zoning, and Act 250, and by actively conserving forests, parks, farms, and natural areas. Much of this has involved mountains and ridgelines, and Camels Hump, a visual symbol of Vermont, is itself a ridgeline and a state forest. We're so invested in Vermont's unspoiled landscape that reversing direction would take a huge shift in fundamental values and expectations. Shifts like this don't happen overnight, especially when there's so much to be ambivalent about.

In concluding that the proposed East Haven Windfarm would be "the right project in the wrong place," the PSB's hearing officer highlighted an important principle. Yes, renewable electricity from wind is a necessary and desirable piece of Vermont's energy mix, but this does not mean that wind farms should be built everywhere. The hearing officer appreciated that the former Champion Lands are as special to Vermont as Camels Hump.

Many people don't realize that the proposed East Haven Windfarm is not only visible from the former Champion Lands, but it's actually a small private "inholding" within this vast conserved area. It is surrounded by many thousands of acres where development is legally prohibited, and there's no question that this factor should weigh heavily in the PSB's thinking.

But we have to get on with it. Since this setting within the Champion Lands is unique, the East Haven opinion won't be a precedent with sweeping implications. It shouldn't jeopardize wind projects throughout the state. And if it provokes wind power advocates to clamor for more clarity in permitting, we should not respond by blinding the permit process to impacts on aesthetics, wildlife, or conserved lands.

So, where are we now? Controversy over the East Haven opinion is hardly a sign that the permit process is broken, but rather a confirmation that it works. Now we need to take the ambivalence out of this by thoughtfully delineating which impacts and tradeoffs are acceptable with wind power development, and which are not. This is a tough balance to strike, but we should rejoice that in Vermont these choices are still ours to make.

Robert Klein directs The Nature Conservancy's Vermont Chapter. The Nature Conservancy holds a conservation easement on 22,700-acres of former Champion Lands, and it has been involved in the permit process for the East Haven Windfarm.