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.