Opinions
Category:
Rhode Island or Vermont
Browse in :
All
> Location
> USA
> Rhode Island (32)
All > Location > USA > Vermont (402)
All of these categories
All > Location > USA > Vermont (402)
All of these categories
Gov. Jim Douglas has called for any development in the wind power industry to specifically relate to a Vermont scale. This is a responsible approach, in my view
..wind development is highly industrial. It's construction is devastating. It's appearance is horrific. It's damage to the environment, wildlife, tourism and real-estate is indisputable. With all that ugly negativism, there should be superb compensating benefits. But there are not. There is no beef. There is no real service for the public good. It's just another tax shelter for the super rich.
Recently, concerns have been raised about my personal position regarding wind energy development in the context of the Orton Family foundation's role in the siting of the proposed Little Equinox wind facility.
If Miss Vermont could speak, she would probably cry out for help. It is our duty as responsible caretakers not to let these wind vultures rape our hills.
Your article to the Message shows you have been strongly influenced by the wind lobby. I don't say this with the intention of being rude but simply direct. Your article is repleat with their rhetoric, their flawed statistics and their irrelevant arguments
Apparently, the enjoyment of million year-old mountain ranges is an indulgence for the airy-fairy crowd, whereas the "necessity" of cyber-porn and bug zappers and floodlit lawn ornaments is a problem to be engaged by serious people.
But that is precisely where the debate begins. Do large wind power facilities actually reduce the effects of fossil fuel use? Opponents look at the evidence -- instead of the industry's sales material -- and find that they do not. Therefore even the most downplayed impact is not justified.
"It's important that people realize the scope of them, the number and
the size," (Gov.) Douglas said. "We need to slow down. This is a very important
decision."
Gov. Jim Douglas has rightly said that the push for industrial wind
power should slow down. Vermonters need to think about where these
enormous wind towers are being proposed: on top of our mountains in some
of the most beautiful corners of the state. Industrial wind turbines
don't belong on Vermont's ridgelines.
A Massachusetts wind developer has met his match in the Northeast
Kingdom, where people are rallying against his plan to industrialize
their ridgeline with massive turbines.
Even at the rare moments when rising wind corresponds to rising demand, backup sources still have to be ramped up as "spinning standby" because the wind may drop out at any moment. This is critical: Wind does not significantly displace other sources of electricity
In promising an examination of "the most important issues in the debate" about industrial wind power, Caroline Kettlewell proceeded to deliver instead an unbalanced promotion for the wind industry.
Bravo. Finally, a declarative statement on wind energy after months of
murky confusion. Finally, a break in the clouds that have shrouded an
issue that is critical to all Vermonters but has been driven largely by
wind developers and advocates.
Taken at face value, Gov. Jim Douglas is saying "No" to big wind.
Similar grassroots activism is taking root in Sheffield and neighboring
villages, where residents call themselves the Ridge Protectors and are
circulating petitions against the project and erecting "Save our
ridgeline" signs along the roadsides.
It suggests a welcoming atmosphere for the industrial wind developers
who are gauging the state's appetite for wind towers on our ridgelines.
That's not the intent of the proclamation, according to Jason Gibbs, the governor's spokesman. It's about promoting renewable energy in general, and small wind power projects specifically -- on "a Vermont scale."
The Bennington Banner (editorial, Sept. 8) appears to think that those who oppose industrial wind power plants on the ridgelines prefer nuclear radiation, coal smoke, and mercury poisoning. They have created a paper tiger and missed the real argument.
The drive to develop our ridgelines is part of the same industrial arrogance, the same corporate piracy, that drives the war and poverty machine Newton calls attention to.
It's not easy to strike a balance, and that's where the friction arises.
In Vermont, it is playing out as the U.S. Forest Service is faced with
delivering a new management plan for the Green Mountain National Forest,
a 400,000-acre parcel of public land in central and southern Vermont.
Mid-life crisis- The Agency of Natural Resources is feeling its age.
August 14, 2005 in The Burlington Free Press (VT)
August 14, 2005 in The Burlington Free Press (VT)
Every decision must be guided by one overriding principle -- to
safeguard the uniqueness that is Vermont.
I have endured the industrial droning for close to ten years, with the added arrhythmic clunk of the gears from the turning mechanisms. This is described as a “barely noticeable” sound. I beg to differ. Due to this industrial noise pollution, I can no longer bring pets to the property, because the droning disorients them in the woods. The impact to the wildlife must be even more severe, despite the claims of the power company’s ‘consultants’. Regardless, my family’s enjoyment of the quiet of the woods is severely diminished.