[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Leonard Duffy: Energy alternatives 

Credit:  By Leonard Duffy | Feb. 14, 2016 | vtdigger.org ~~

Recent statements by proponents and beneficiaries of Vermont’s solar and wind industry would have us believe that the only way to “save the planet” is to destroy the very landscape that we love. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Vermont’s goal of achieving a high percentage of renewable energy is laudable. Our strategic location between Hydro-Quebec and more populous southern New England should make that goal readily achievable at a cost we can afford without destroying our precious agrarian landscape. It only takes responsible political leadership.

Unfortunately, our present leaders appear to have been deluded by a well-funded lobbying effort preaching that we must permanently turn large portions of our world-renowned landscape into wind factories and so-called “solar farms”; energy sources which can only be justified by massive subsidies paid by hard-working Vermonters to out-of-state investors. The proponents’ technique is to call anyone interested in protecting the landscape “short-sighted naysayers and deniers,” and now they even sue opponents for speaking up against their rampant destruction. Meanwhile, they plan to consume another 10,000 more acres and miles of ridgelines in the near future.

Remember? Only a decade ago the entire state of Vermont was designated “endangered” by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. VNRC, now a champion of industrial-solar-and-wind-everywhere, equated all development in Vermont to the Valdez oil spill for fundraising purposes. Vermonters have often sacrificed significant economic opportunities to protect our bucolic landscape from excessive development.

The present energy policy has already had devastating effects on our landscape, though producing a miniscule amount of power. It certainly has long-term impact on Vermont’s essential tourism industry, as well as our quality of life. Many residents have been negatively impacted, and the eyesores will only get far worse as nature takes its toll.

It doesn’t have to be that way. In addition to the much more sustainable and reliable 24/7 renewable energy source at our northern doorstep, we have sufficient acres of existing parking lots, landfills, industrial parks and rooftops for the most extensive solar energy projections. The only reason these areas are not being used is that is is far cheaper for the industry to exploit open farm and forest land. Paying a pittance to some poor farmer while avoiding any significant regulatory review is far more attractive to Wall Street investors than tackling the structural and permitting hurdles of working in an already developed area.

Screening and setbacks won’t solve the problem. Skewing the present subsidies and incentives toward urban locations might help. At the very least, all rural renewable energy projects should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, and potential denial, given other industrial projects through Act 250 and local land use controls. Furthermore, the full impact of subsidizing out-of-state financiers to destroy our landscape and our tourist industry must be weighed against the cost of purchasing renewable power from Hydro-Quebec. There is no reason to consume another single acre of Vermont farmland or ridgeline until those steps are taken.

This commentary is by Leonard Duffy, of Hinesburg, who is a licensed architect, a former member and chair of both the Hinesburg and Chittenden regional planning commissions, as well as former co-chair of a state guidelines committee on Act 250 Criterion 8, Aesthetics.

Source:  By Leonard Duffy | Feb. 14, 2016 | vtdigger.org

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
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky