Time for a wind moratorium and balance
Nov 01, 2012 | 2057 views | 2 2 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print
To the Editor:

In a recent Rutland Herald article, the governor suggested that Vermonters who oppose the destruction of our pristine ridgelines for large scale wind development are against “virtually everything.” (“Candidates take opposite tacks on energy” by Peter Hirschfeld, Vermont Press Bureau, October 24.)

These remarks are not surprising coming from a governor who won the Democratic nomination by less that 1%, believes wind power can somehow replace conventional power, and believes he may have been responsible for Tropical Storm Irene cleanup. Don’t forget this spring he thought he was “almost” mauled by bears.

Vermonters who oppose wind development, are quite oppositely pro “everything” except large scale wind development. Many are conservative and place a high value on the landscape that historically Vermonters have worked so hard to preserve.

So why is the governor so hellbent on destroying Vermont’s most valuable natural resource for one single alternative?

For the same reason he believes he was “almost” mauled by bears, he “thinks” it will work.

Vermonters oppose wind for more practical reasons. It simply doesn’t work. It is destructive to small rural communities and it damages human health and the wild and natural resources around us. And, most likely, will make the CO2 problem worse.

Here’s a more practical question ... how is the governor doing with his energy footprint?

With 17 homes valued at over $4.5 million, it most likely would dwarf most rural Vermonters.

Al Gore ring a bell?

The governor is traversing the country sounding the perpetual climate change alarm while Vermonters struggle with unemployment, high taxes, higher electric bills, and medical expenses, made worse by these “Pie in the Sky” fantasies he is creating while the bears chase him around his yard trying to eat his brownies.

It’s time for more balance, a moratorium on wind, and pragmatism in Montpelier.

Greg Bryant

Comments-icon Post a Comment
Wayne Andrews
November 02, 2012
Who appointed the windmill nay sayers as the experts in determining the ridgeline as being "Vermont's most valuable resource"?

Wendy Ingraham
November 02, 2012
If you have to make a point by making fun of someone' else's (all the snide references in Greg Bryant's letter about the bear incident), it's probable that your point is flawed. It's the oldest trick in the book to try and make someone look like an idiot in order to further your beliefs. Would it not be better to stay on the topic itself?

Climate change is real.....we just had yet another wake up call regarding that with Sandy. How do you think our lives will be affected economically when we have to frequently recover from the likes of Irene and Sandy? Climate change and economics are connected and if you don't believe that take a good look at NY and NJ right now.

What is not being discussed is the newest wind technologies that do not destroy habitat and affect humans on the same level as traditional windmills. We just need to hold off on wind farms until folks utilize this newer technology, and do good planning like we would any project that would affect both humans and the environment. One thing is clear~ traditional ways of getting the fuel we need are destroying the planet and us along with it. We can make it work, with wind and solar and geothermal. But only if we start working together on solutions, not dividing ourselves into them and us. And that is no "pie in the sky fantasy". Look at other countries around the world so far ahead of us in wind and solar etc. There is the proof right there.

Comment Policy

In an effort to promote reasoned discussion, transparency, and integrity in online commenting, The Deerfield Valley News requires anyone posting comments to identify themselves using their real name. Anonymous commenting will not be allowed. All comments will be subject to approval before posting, and may take up to 24 hours for approval to be granted.

We encourage civil discourse among readers, and ask that they be willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. No personal harassment or hate speech will be tolerated. Please be succinct and to the point. For longer comments, please consider submitting a letter to the editor instead. It will appear in both the print and online editions.

All comments will be reviewed, and we reserve the right to reject, edit or remove any comment for any reason. For questions or to express concerns feel free to contact our office at (802) 464-3388.