Editor’s note: This commentary is by Brian Tokar, a lecturer in environmental studies at UVM, a board member of 350Vermont and the Institute for Social Ecology, and the author of “Toward Climate Justice: Perspectives on the Climate Crisis and Social Change.”
[T]he continuing controversy around renewable energy siting in Vermont significantly dominated the last week of campaigning in the Democratic primary race for governor, and may have been a major factor in the outcome. Sue Minter positioned herself as resolutely pro-renewables and third-place finisher Peter Galbraith was adamantly opposed to large-scale wind projects. Matt Dunne had long aimed toward a more nuanced stance, but his shift in tone during the final week was widely perceived as an opportunistic change in his position. I believe we missed an important opportunity for this initial phase of the governor’s race to help reorient the stiflingly polarized debate over the siting of renewable energy projects in Vermont.
The intense polarization around this issue has been very disturbing to many climate advocates here. On one hand, groups like VPIRG and Renewable Energy Vermont have staked out a position that any possible limitations on large-scale projects represent an existential threat to our appropriately ambitious renewable energy goals. On the other side are those who view all utility-scaled developments as an assault on our precious lands and wildlife habitats, among other concerns. This debate has pitted neighbors against neighbors and environmental advocates against one another.
Some Vermont climate advocates have struggled to articulate a different approach, arguing that we may not find our way to the renewable future we desperately need if communities feel that projects are being pushed through at the expense of their own future. Various Republican operatives who are perfectly comfortable with the expansion of oil, gas and even nuclear power in Vermont have sought to exploit these communities’ discomfort, and it is crucially important to distinguish people’s principled concerns from political opportunism. Indeed many Vermont climate activists feel strongly that communities need to be actively engaged in creating – and benefiting directly from – a path toward greener energy, and that the renewable future we seek cannot be attained if communities view solar and wind projects mainly as vehicles for the corporate exploitation of their most sensitive undeveloped lands.
In a January 2015 statement the board of 350Vermont, an independent local affiliate of the wider 350.org network co-founded by Bill McKibben, issued a statement aiming to prioritize the development of renewable energy projects that fulfill four goals:
• Achieve the maximum possible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, now and into the future.
• Protect human health, wildlife, and the health of sensitive ecosystems.
• Stabilize costs to consumers without compromising our environmental goals, and distribute energy costs as equitably as possible.
• Rely on an open and accountable process for siting renewable energy facilities that incorporates principles of human rights and climate justice.
I hope the next governor and Legislature can reach beyond the polarization of recent years and address both the absolute urgency of the climate crisis and the necessity of genuinely democratic, community-centered solutions.
It is clear to our board members that there are often conflicts among these essential priorities, and also that it is wrong to equate the effects of renewable developments with the wholesale ecological devastation that comes with current forms of fossil fuel extraction such as tar sands, fracked gas, deep ocean drilling and mountaintop removal coal mining. We agreed that only open, democratic processes, empowering those most affected by policy decisions, can adequately address potential conflicts among these priorities. The siting rules approved by the Legislature this past spring offer some steps in this direction, but there’s much more to be done.
In my own research and teaching on this subject, I have learned that there are many examples of community-owned wind projects in the U.S. Midwest and in Europe that could represent a better alternative to the largely corporate-driven projects we’ve seen so far in Vermont. When communities benefit directly from renewable projects and have some genuine control over their development, they are likely to be supported by a much wider cross-section of those communities.
Unfortunately now, the increasing economy of scale of larger projects is tending to favor corporate initiatives over community-owned renewables in many areas. This is partly a function of economics and partly a consequence of the unique physics of wind power. But this makes it even more urgent than before that we craft a response to our need for an accelerated energy transition that is best suited to Vermont, and that strikes an appropriate balance between reliance on in-state and out-of-state resources.
I hope the next governor and Legislature can reach beyond the polarization of recent years and address both the absolute urgency of the climate crisis and the necessity of genuinely democratic, community-centered solutions. We need a governor who clearly opposes new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure, supports divestment from fossil fuels, and prioritizes green jobs, public transportation and finding new ways to make renewable energy more affordable for Vermonters. We need to fully weatherize Vermont homes and other buildings so we can meaningfully reduce our total energy use. We also need a governor who can help us reach past the debilitating cycle of budget cuts and austerity that have plagued the Shumlin administration these past six years. For climate justice advocates across Vermont, it is impossible to separate the course of our energy future from the need for a more just economic future. The best path forward will be one that enables us to address both of these vexing problems at the same time.
