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.

The environmental movement has begun to approach scientific issues with a similar zealotry typically found in religious fanaticism. A case in point: global warming................We need skeptical scientists to keep public and political passions in check. Otherwise, we devolve in our thinking to the point where unverified beliefs, held strong enough, can become idolatry.

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.

The current craze for wind towers is just that--a craze. Understandably, we are concerned about carbon emissions and energy security. Wind towers are a visible symbol that we are attempting to do something. Unfortunately, they are a hollow symbol. Like Don Quixote, we are obsessed by windmills, except that instead of attacking them, we are building them. Fifty miles of wind towers crowning Vermont's ridgelines will cost residents and taxpayers a fortune, but they will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions or secure energy supplies. We should put our money and our effort into less damaging and more productive solutions, such as conservation and the development of clean coal technology.

This is far from the simple story that proponents of wind power might have you believe. I do not wish to knock the hope of wind power. But equally I do wish people to be fully informed and understand the serious shortfall of its promise, the choices they make, and their potentially harsh consequences.

Aesthetic opposition thus includes reason. The Energy Information Agency has just reported that wind energy produced 0.36 percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2005 and 0.05 percent of the total energy we used. In European countries where wind produces a significant proportion of electricity, consumption of other fuels continues apace. This is apparently because other plants must stay on line, burning fuel less efficiently to balance the highly intermittent and variable infeed from wind. Giant wind turbines on the grid are sham symbolism, nothing more. Their negative impacts — to the environment, wildlife, people, and communities — are, however, all too real.

Paul Brouha of Sutton, who opposes putting big wind towers on our ridge lines, wants Vermont legislators to consider a bill to give financial relief to the ordinary people and small communities who find themselves fighting the monsters. He proposes that developers who look forward to collecting any of the government grants, subsidies or tax breaks available to alternative energy producers should pay the legal expenses of the people who want to stop them. The limit on these expenses would be the total of the grants and subsidies to be collected. We doubt that there’s much hope for the bill in the state Legislature, whatever its merits. But Mr. Brouha’s estimates of how much it costs to fight wind developers before the state Public Service Board (PSB) are surprising. He says the Kingdom Commons Group, which has so far fought to a standstill the plan to put four towers at the old radar site in East Haven, spent $300,000. And the opponents of the UPC Wind proposal in Sheffield will spend about $600,000. That spending, Mr. Brouha says in his “rationale” for the bill, will be shared by the Ridge Protectors, King George School, the town of Sutton and now the town of Barton.

As a writer, I am deeply indebted to the Northeast Kingdom, from which I’ve drawn inspiration for almost 50 years: its woods, fields, ponds, hills, its people, its other creatures. Like most of my neighbors, I favor conservation and renewable energy. The fear of climate change has been with me for many years, ever since I felt the early, subtle signs of it. But I do not support the proposed UPC industrial wind facility.

Vermont has a long history of protecting its undeveloped ridgelines. Previous legislatures have struggled to protect this beautiful landscape for us and we hope this legislature will be just as vigilant in protecting it for those who will follow.

The vote on Jan. 16 will be my first in Barton. I’m looking forward to helping send a clear message to the Barton Board of Selectmen, Vermont’s Public Service Board, and others that solutions to creating energy independence must necessarily focus on renewable energy sources that are sustainable as well as reflect and respect the local resources, community and way of life. The UPC Vermont Wind proposal must be resoundingly rejected. The electricity debate must move forward. Vermont must maintain its leadership role in promoting energy programs that make sense. For while I’ve learned that there isn’t much wind up here, there are substantial, renewable and sustainable energy sources to be tapped into here in the NEK, just ask your neighbors.

What the department’s new approach fails to recognize is that UPC’s wind towers — at 420 feet tall on top of ridgelines in Sheffield — will be the most prominent feature on the ridgelines for miles around for residents and visitors of numerous locations, not just Sheffield and Sutton. The compromise might show respect for the decision-making process, but it fails to respect the real impact of these industrial giants on Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom. We need leadership and clarity on this divisive issue. Before we’re at the stage where wind companies are seeking approval from the Public Service Board to build their individual projects, the state needs an overall energy plan, a vision. The state should follow up on its promise of a public engagement process on energy to educate and inform Vermonters about energy choices and tradeoffs.

In the midst of next summer, when the demand for electricity is nearly off the scale, the residents of Vermont will expect reliable reserves of power. Given that demand, are our wind power advocates willing to wager on next summer's average wind speed?

And now we don’t have to go to Disneyland. Because, child, Disneyland is the whole state covered with wind towers.

Although the approach is too late for projects that have already begun a federal review process, a dozen New England congressmen and senators have asked for help from the Department of Energy in coordinating a regional approach to siting liquefied natural gas facilities. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud have both signed on to this request, which makes sense for future energy projects.

A green energy future beyond 2012 that includes both nuclear energy and large hydro. Renewables (i.e., small-scale wind and hydro), efficiency, and demand side management programs should be our first choice for new energy supplies, but cannot realistically fill the enormous gap that would be created if Vermont Yankee's and Hydro-Quebec's licenses are not renewed. These two sources make up about 70 percent of Vermont's energy supply. Vermonters don't want their energy future stockings filled with lumps of smog-producing coal.

As was reported by this paper on Friday, Nov. 17, the NVDA intends to study and determine the impact of the Ginn Development Company’s projects on local infrastructure. Since we already know how it will affect us, I urge the members of the communities of Lyndon, St. Johnsbury, Sutton, Newark, East Haven, Kirby and Burke to resist the encroachment of the developers and protect the treasures of the Kingdom.

Wind only adds more negatives, and none are reduced.