LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME



[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates
RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

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

News Watch Home

Mountaintops are fragile 

Credit:  Rutland Herald | May 24, 2017 | www.rutlandherald.com ~~

I have a significant gripe with your editorial “Sound waves,” specifically, this statement: “The odd thing is that wind opponents, too, count themselves as environmentalists.” Huh?

What is “odd” about Vermonters rallying to protect their most sensitive mountain terrain from destruction? Are they not more in the tradition of such Vermont environmental stalwarts as George Perkins Marsh, Shirley Strong, Hub Vogelmann, Deane Davis and others? And why should the term “environmentalist” be the default description for groups that actively promote the destruction of our mountain ecosystems for marginal wind? Again, huh!

I know that Orwell’s book “1984” is again on the bestseller list, but I hope that Vermont is not becoming infected with its own environmental Newspeak where destruction is good, preservation is bad, mountains are good, but wind turbines are better.

As Charles Johnson, once Vermont’s state naturalist, wrote in “The Mountain Manifesto”: “Ironically, the ages-old toughness of our mountains translates not into durability, but just the opposite: fragility. The environment at higher elevations is far more vulnerable to outside disturbances, both natural and human-induced, than at lower altitudes: any damage takes a greater toll on resident life, takes longer to self-repair (if it ever does), and the effects compound downhill (or, if towers and wind turbines are involved, higher, for creatures that fly).”

Lastly, you buried what should have been your lede: “Maybe wind is best left to the rangeland of Texas or offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.” On that, I completely agree.

BRUCE S. POST

Essex

Source:  Rutland Herald | May 24, 2017 | www.rutlandherald.com

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)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

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

 Follow:

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