Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
‘Wind must be part of energy mix’?
The tone and substance of your 3/27 editorial ‘Wind must be part of energy mix’ suggests you, as is true of many Vermonters, have been simply co-opted by wind power advocates with little or no homework done on what impact industrial wind power would have on Vermont’s environment, economy and quality of life.
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
The tone and substance of your 3/27 editorial ‘Wind must be part of energy mix’ suggests you, as is true of many Vermonters, have been simply co-opted by wind power advocates with little or no homework done on what impact industrial wind power would have on Vermont’s environment, economy and quality of life. At a minimum, you haven’t done your homework on the proposed Glebe project because, if you had, you would know it is not (as you would say) ‘located at discrete and, one hopes, appropriate locations”. The proposed Glebe project (27 lighted turbines, each 330’-390’ high, sited approximately 500’ apart along 3.5 miles of Glebe’s ridgeline) has been described by noted landscape architect, Jean Vissering, as an ‘in your face’ project that ‘will define the town’. In short, Glebe is not Searsburg.
Your editorial also refers to the recent visit to Vermont of Ross Gelbspan, the well-known author of articles and books on global warming. As written, the casual reader of the editorial might even conclude that Mr. Gelbspan favors the Glebe project. In fact, that’s not the case. In an interview with Robert Smith (‘The Heat is On’, Message for the Week 3/31), Mr. Gelbspan is quoted as saying: “The place where windfarms would have the greatest impact is in the Great Plains area, like North Dakota. My feeling is that the different parts of the country should focus on what would work best in their area. Wind in the Great Plains and Midwest, solar in the South, hydrogen in the Northeast. That way we also diversify and decentralize our energy sources’.
And, finally, whereas you congratulate the House for setting aside legislation that was putting additional roadblocks in front of wind power development in Vermont, you fail to mention that H 767, if enacted, would establish a Commission to ‘study the costs and benefits’ of Glebe type projects to Vermont’s environment, economy and energy needs. The Commission would focus on exactly those issues you dismiss rather cavalierly, i.e. real estate values, tourism, etc. It is my fervent hope that this Commission will conclude that projects like Glebe offer diminutive benefits particularly when compared to the substantial threats posed by such projects to Vermont’s environment, economy and quality-of-life.
Other than the above, your editorial was ‘spot on’.
Hugh Kemper
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
Wind Watch relies entirely on User Contributions |
(via Stripe) |
(via Paypal) |
Share: