Green Mountain Power's plan to construct a wind farm along a ridge line in the town of Lowell will have little impact on Vermont's energy needs. Neither will it improve Vermont's climate or environment. Instead the wind farm will be a monument to crowd pleasing notions of energy independence and freeing Vermont from the slavery of fossil fuel dependence. With some of the cleanest air in the country and a nearly non-existent carbon footprint from Vermont Yankee, it's hard to understand just what role the wind farm will play.

Wind power is winning in the Northeast Kingdom, and will continue to win, for a couple of reasons. Energy policy is terribly sensitive to fashion, and wind is currently fashionable. Hydro power used to be fashionable, and therefore good, and easy to push through the permit process. Now it is unfashionable, so while Vermont consumes great quantities of power from Hydro Quebec, we can't count it as renewable energy in our utilities' portfolios. That, of course, is an act of deliberate, politically inspired stupidity.

Right now, the state is in limbo regarding renewable energy development. As Vermont has seen relatively little development of renewables, the guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable are less codified than in states already hosting thousands of megawatts of wind or solar installations. ...renewable energy is an area where thorough regulation of an industry is valuable, and our state has exactly the regulatory climate and environmental cachet to do the job.

Last week, the New England Governors' Conference raised green fantasy to new heights with the release of its Renewable Energy Blueprint, which said the region "has a significant quantity of untapped renewable resources, on the order of over 10,000 MW combined of on-shore and off-shore wind power potential." Neither the report nor the news articles about it bothered to do the math. At 7 MW, New England would need 1,429 E-126s to tap that potential. Though the turbines likely would be clustered in "farms," that's an average of 238 per state, or more than one for each town in Connecticut. The cost would be $221 billion that the states don't have, though they might get a bulk-purchase discount of a billion or two.

Wind turbines should not be portrayed as the most reliable, cleanest and cheapest source of energy. The changes to our scenic landscape will not be minimal. Why do we have to watch the value of our property decrease and our beautiful ridgeline be destroyed? A few business people with a profit motive should not rush through an approval process that sacrifices the natural beauty of Vermont for decades or forever.

Now that Ms. Symington says she wants 20 percent of Vermont's electricity in 10 years from windmills, here's how to bring that dream to fruition.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington set up the debate with her simple proposal to drive the use of wind power in Vermont from 0.2 percent to 20 percent in 10 years. A far-fetched goal that's just too simple to realize? The response was swift from David O'Brien, the state Public Service commissioner. He used one word to define Symington's idea: "irresponsible." Symington's suggestion may in fact be "irresponsible." Yet we're all adult enough to probe probabilities ...

The [New England] region's power system has had a long history of dependability, but electricity costs have been an issue for businesses and residents for decades. As the region plans ahead, New England's policymakers face a series of decisions that will have an abiding impact on our energy future. ...Economic, reliability and environmental goals are not always perfectly aligned when it comes to electricity generation and transmission. Whatever path policymakers choose to take will require trade-offs. How New England officials balance these sometimes conflicting goals will demonstrate our priorities, impact the regional economy and determine which objectives we can realistically achieve.

The state, through a series of workshops, is enlisting opinions for shaping choices of electricity sources. Opinions should not shape policy. Educated, thoughtful planning and research should be operative. Jane and John Q. Public are not qualified to shape policy on such a complex matter. Nor are state-level planners, it would seem, since they are the ones who are asking, "What shall we do?" ...I've also heard that the workshop materials are biased toward wind power, citing exaggerated benefits and unrealistic capacity factors. ...The cost of these useless, wasteful workshops and "deliberative polling" ($500,000) is being passed on to each and every one of us. I want my money back.

In the ongoing debate about Vermont Yankee's role in the state's energy future, those for and against the continued operation of the nuclear power plant have something to prove. Nuclear energy opponents must come up with a reliable and affordable alternative to the power Vermont Yankee supplies. ...Yet no one has come up with a reasonable alternative for the reliable power provided by Vermont Yankee. Conservation and efficiency efforts are insufficient to reduce the state's energy demand by a third within five years. Nor can Vermont develop wind and solar capacity to provide the base load power to make up for Vermont Yankee's output. Powering down Vermont's economy is not an option, nor is a dramatic increase in electricity rates.

Recently, the Public Service Board made history. With the stroke of a pen, three men reversed a century of work by Vermont citizens to preserve this state's historic landscape. Chairman James Volz, David Cohen, and John Burke opened the door to the largest industrial ridgeline development project in our state's history. Unfortunately, this will become their legacy.

Vermont Yankee is also a valuable and vitally important resource that should not be wasted. Unlike wind power, Vermont Yankee provides low cost, round-the-clock generation that, when combined with the Hydro Quebec contracts, gives Vermont one of the lowest carbon footprints in the country. Vermont and Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, should work together to jointly develop Vermont's future energy plan. The ongoing political battle between the Entergy and Vermont helps no one.

Unfortunately, the most important issue at hand has been conspicuously glossed over in these debates. Our immediate need is to begin securing baseload power sources, which will provide economical electricity 24 hours per day, 365 days each year after the current agreements with Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec expire. Make no mistake, all Vermonters need to find opportunities within their own homes and businesses to switch to more energy efficient technology and reduce consumption by adopting conservation practices for all energy usage. Additionally, where economically viable without massive government subsidies, all in-state renewable energy sources should be developed. Local sources tend to be more reliable, provide greater economic benefits and facilitate fuel and supply source diversity. But, renewables, (excluding large hydro), efficiency and conservation will never to be able to meet fully Vermont's electrical energy needs. Nor do they eliminate the need for baseload supply.

But there is an answer for Vermont's energy future, with or without nuclear energy, and it would help keep Vermont the number one least polluting state in the country and the number sixth most desirable tourist location in the world. The answer is hydropower.

With arbitrary enactment of the Shumlin tax, Vermont would send a negative message out to all businesses considering expansion or relocation to the state, while jeopardizing the amount of no emission carbon power it receives, at attractive prices. This would be both unfortunate, unnecessary, and clearly not the Vermont way. Shumlin should end the shakedown of Vermont Yankee now.

A truly "bold," environmentally conscious state would go nuclear even more. Burlington will only really be the "best of" Green Places when local postcards show its charming leafy streets, with a view of Lake Champlain -- and a nuclear power plant looming in the background.

Industrial wind turbine facilities are not only a visual insult, they degrade and fragment wildlife habitat, they threaten bats and birds, they open up wild areas to sprawl with roads and transmission lines, and, as wind energy consultant John Zimmerman has said, "wind turbines don't make good neighbors."

What are your thoughts on wind power in Vermont and how it affects recreation? Local authors and outdoor enthusiasts Kirk Kardashian and Stephen Gorman make the arguments for and against windpower in Vermont.

Industrial wind turbines capture the imagination because they are a visible symbol that we are doing something about the environment. But in fact they are a boondoggle. They have a negligible effect on the environment, while wasting money that might be better spent elsewhere, damaging Vermont's rural landscape (itself a significant economic asset) and transferring a ton of money from the pockets of Vermont taxpayers to the bank accounts of the developers.