Editor’s note: This commentary is by Neil Brandt, who graduated from the University of Vermont in 2014 with a BA in environmental studies. He’s interested in renewable energy and sustainability in Vermont, and is pursuing work in the field of environmental policy.
[I]’m writing in response to Mark Whitworth’s op-ed titled “Big Wind’s Public Relations Problem” from Oct. 14, 2014. While I’m flattered that Mr. Whitworth chose to cite my research in his writing, I would have appreciated being contacted so I might provide some answers and insight about the findings. Unfortunately, Mr. Whitworth mischaracterizes the study numerous times, and I’d like to clarify several places in which this occurs.
The largest mistake is Whitworth’s characterization of all supporting quotations as “Big Wind.” He writes, “Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way, and it now dominates their sales pitch,” and, “… Big Wind stopped emphasizing energy independence.” The study actually found that the climate change “frame” or supporting message increased over time for all sources, while the energy independence frame decreased. This included quotations from pro-wind and anti-wind organizations, both local and state government figures, Vermont citizens, and Vermont legislators as well as wind industry representatives. Whitworth claims multiple times that the changing supporting frames represent a change in wind industry outreach, while it really represents a change in messaging for all people cited in the 477 articles studied. In fact, the study does not include a breakdown of frames by source, so the claim that “Big Wind” is using a new sales pitch is unfounded. That’s also true of the claim that there were no statement about health impacts from state government — nowhere in the thesis is that expressed.
Whitworth pretends “delay a few years” is synonymous with full-blown opposition. Those results, if anything, suggest more Vermonters are interested in seeing additional wind built in Vermont in the future than previous polls showed, not fewer.
Whitworth also references the most recent polling data from WCAX about ridgeline wind. Here again, as with my work, he mischaracterizes that poll’s results. In it, 41 percent of respondents want to “delay [building more wind] a few years” and 50 percent “favor moving forward.” In his piece, Whitworth pretends “delay a few years” is synonymous with full-blown opposition. Those results, if anything, suggest more Vermonters are interested in seeing additional wind built in Vermont in the future than previous polls showed, not fewer.
In my thesis, I included polls that were relevant and from to the years studied, which included three separate polls from 2012 and 2013. Those polls showed at least 58% of respondents supporting wind and at most 23% opposed, and the WCAX poll does not call those results into question. What Whitmore fails to mention is the conclusion that I arrived at when comparing polling data with the results of the study. Simply put, the stark contrast between the media representation of the wind debate and the debate itself shows that the outlets studied incorrectly portray the public as opposed to wind, when in fact available evidence has consistently shown the public supports building wind in Vermont.
To summarize, both the context and conclusions of my research are not accurately portrayed in Mr. Whitworth’s op-ed. I do not condone the misuse of my findings, especially as a springboard for propaganda on any side of Vermont’s wind debate. For anyone who’s interested in learning more about the research, please don’t hesitate to read my UVM Honors Thesis online at http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses/42/ .