Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Elinor Osborn, a photographer from Craftsbury Common. It is a letter to Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, in response to the VNRC’s Jan. 3 statement on the proposed wind moratorium.
Dear Mr. Shupe:
I have just read your statement opposing the industrial wind moratorium in Vermont. Here is my reply:
In your letter you say “… the motivations of the moratorium’s sponsors are well intentioned and grounded in a desire to protect Vermont’s mountaintops and ridgelines …” There is much more to it than just the importance of protecting ridgelines. These are my reasons for protecting ridgelines and all the other important aspects:
1.Nearly all of Vermont’s use of fossil fuels is for heating and transportation. Very little goes into making electricity. Besides this, GMP sells renewable energy credits (RECs) to fossil fuel power plants in other states, allowing them to continue burning fossil fuels. So how can you say industrial wind will lower carbon emissions in Vermont?
2.Vermont does not need more electricity. Electrical use is declining and we could do even more to use less.
3.The grid cannot handle much more intermittent power. David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, recently made a statement on this.
4.Loss of habitat and wildlife corridors is tragic especially with global warming upon us. The Lowell mountains are in the “high priority linkage” area, according to Staying Connected, a partnership of state and environmental organizations, and you are one of those partners.
5.The impact of industrial wind noise on human health has not been thoroughly studied
6.Wind projects are dividing our communities. Vermont, here in the Northeast Kingdom anyway, has wonderful communities which are rare.
7.There should be a study of how much carbon is burned in the mining, manufacturing, transport, construction, maintenance and transport for maintenance of industrial wind before saying industrial wind lessens use of fossil fuel.
8.The amount of carbon sequestration lost in the clearcuts to construct industrial wind should be estimated. It has not been.
9.There should be baseline studies of stream flow, volume of flow, turbidity, etc., before a project is begun so there can be accurate measurement of runoff later after acres of impervious surface are in place. That could have been done before any projects were begun, but it was not. One of your staffers wrote a fine paper on the possible problems with water quality using past similar projects as examples — VNRC comments to the Department of Environmental Conservation on Kingdom Community Wind by Kim Greenwood, July 15, 2011. One paragraph states “This project [Lowell] is one of, if not the, largest project proposed in Vermont in a high-elevation location in the last decade. Because of this, VNRC feels that the Agency should require enough data so that interested parties can have an informed and science-based dialogue on impacts due to the construction. When examining historic permits and certifications, it becomes apparent that the protections called for in this certification are less than those required for similar yet smaller projects. This presents a missed opportunity for creating a dialogue based on biological data – the ultimate test of a water’s health.” There are many statements questioning ANR. Why didn’t you consider this paper before deciding not to support the moratorium?
10.Decommissioning — How can 40+ feet of rock fill be removed and revegetated? How much environmental damage will be caused by removing the turbines after 20-25 years. Some say they last an even shorter time.
11.Native botany should have been cataloged before construction to compare with invasive species which will most likely move in after construction. They always seem to move in after earth disturbance.
12.Jobs — there are many during construction but only two or three after a project is on line.
13.Killing endangered bats and declining neotropical birds is unacceptable and should not be condoned by an environmental organization.
You say “Climate change and fossil fuel scarcity are major threats to Vermont and the world.” I agree. “Deployment of a full range of available renewable energy technologies, including well-sited wind power, is among the many important strategies to reduce those threats.” Actually, wind power does not reduce the threat of climate change or fossil fuel scarcity in Vermont. See No. 1 above.
I do not believe the moratorium will minimize the threat of global warming in anyone’s mind — especially when the facts are explained. I know there is a huge threat from global warming but I want to attack the threat where it will do some good — through improving gas mileage on vehicles and weatherizing buildings. The tax credit money should be put into these efforts instead of going out of Vermont to a foreign corporation which has one of the worst environmental records of any corporation. That is Enbridge, which is the ultimate parent company of GMP.
You mention the State Siting Policy Commission. This is backwards. Why do we have a siting commission to determine where to put wind when there has not been an independent study done first on wind’s feasibility and environmental and health effects in Vermont? Wind may be feasible in other states — in farmland or the desert. I don’t know as I have not researched that.
“There are no pending applications …” Now that the production tax credit (PTC) has been extended those applications will come in quickly. Lowell Mountain was pushed through as fast as possible to meet the 2012 deadline. Other projects will do the same.
What steps is the state taking to “mitigate or avoid the impacts of wind development”? I’ve not heard of any. There is no mitigation for endangered bats killed, declining birds killed, wildlife corridors destroyed. Once gone, they are gone.
“A moratorium on wind energy facilities does not address the vast majority of land use impacts on forest and habitat fragmentation and water quality. Many of the environmental concerns commonly associated with wind energy development – including habitat fragmentation and stormwater runoff – are widely associated with a range of land use and development activities both at high and lower elevations that are subject to much less stringent – or no – state regulation and oversight.” I don’t understand this. Are you saying that if lands are not protected by the state in some way, they are of no value? Or that degradation of streams with increased runoff do not affect watersheds and the communities in them?
” A moratorium on wind projects in Vermont – regardless of one’s view of such an initiative – more broadly undermines other efforts both here in Vermont and across the country to address climate change because it has the effect of minimizing the threat.” I do not believe the moratorium will minimize the threat of global warming in anyone’s mind — especially when the facts are explained. I know there is a huge threat from global warming but I want to attack the threat where it will do some good — through improving gas mileage on vehicles and weatherizing buildings. The tax credit money should be put into these efforts instead of going out of Vermont to a foreign corporation which has one of the worst environmental records of any corporation. That is Enbridge, which is the ultimate parent company of GMP.
“VNRC believes that carefully sited renewable energy generation facilities – including wind turbines – coupled with aggressive energy conservation and efficiency strategies, are a responsible response to climate change, peak oil and the need for an independent, clean energy economy.” I certainly agree with the energy conservation and efficiency but not with the rest of your statement.
If VNRC continues to oppose the moratorium, I will sadly be withdrawing my membership. I have been a committed environmentalist for the past 50 years and will continue to be so. That is why I support the moratorium for all the reasons I have given above.
I look forward to your reply with answers to my questions and comments above.
