We haven't seen yet a convincing case that large-scale wind energy can play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions in Vermont, which would be the only rational basis for sacrificing a landscape that plays such an important role in the state's economy and self-identity. And the ability of towns to exert some control over their destiny when it comes to development is not something that should be lightly overridden.
It would be too bad if a project had local support but a moratorium quashed it. It would also be too bad if a project were universally despised in its host communities but a town's lack of standing in the process did not allow the PSB to take into account local views. ...Even boosters such as Shumlin say they don't want to cram any projects down townspeople's throats. The Legislature ought to be looking for ways that towns can be empowered to prevent that from happening.
The intersection of health and renewable energy is a brand new area of medical inquiry that must be studied. To say that no further study of the issues is necessary as the AWEA-CANWEA authors did is shameful. The precautionary principle must be applied to projects that have the potential of worsening our lives. I and others will continue to work unceasingly on issues we believe in.
It gives me hope that a sane assessment of costs versus benefits will prevail over this destructive scheme to industrialize a huge proportion of Vermont’s unspoiled mountain landscape.
There has been much discussion over Vermont's role in the local, regional and global energy solutions for the future. People from across the state may have differing views on the impact of energy on the environment and economy, but there is one point where there is consensus -- we must plan for Vermont's energy future together.
November 30, 2005
in The Caledonian-Record
Now, a sign in the center of Sheffield reads, "Real Vermonters Can't Be Bought." Perhaps the developers from Massachusetts had failed to realize this difference between the two states.
In the last couple of years I have watched Illuzzi do his fence jumping on the wind issues. One day he wants to destroy the ridgelines and if you wait a few weeks he doesn’t. It’s a lot like waiting for the wind to blow — you really never know where it’s coming from.
We seem to be engaging the issue of energy from within its specifics, lacking a broader view. It might be helpful to look at some "big picture" figures involving energy. Regarding Vermont's energy future, this is a time for thoughtful and careful consideration. P.T Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. Let's, instead, be smart and not act in a way that could unnecessarily impact Vermont negatively leaving permanent scars.
It is indisputable that this project would dramatically change Londonderry’s character, our environment, the quality of our lives and pose a threat to our tourist and second-home owner based economy. It makes no sense to sacrifice these first class assets for a second class energy source [industrial wind energy] that will have a negligible impact on emissions.
Editor's Note: Hugh Kemper is a Director of NWW.
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.