Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jock Gill, of Peacham, an internet communications consultant who served in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Media Affairs. He is town energy coordinator in Peacham.
Ready or not, there are disruptive paradigm shifts and convergences presently underway in energy, transportation and communications. The question is how will we use them to create a better future for all?
Vermont is truly at a fork in the road. There is a new road that could be taken to a new future. A key question facing us is whether or not mainstream approaches, such as in politics, housing, energy or agriculture, will get us to a new vision for Vermont in a post-Covid world? Do we need an active consideration of ideas beyond the conventional mainstream in Vermont?
Intentional development, for example, may incorporate agriculture as a core element. Such an approach, perhaps called “eco villages” or agrodevelopment, has a number of integrated goals:
1. Community building
2. Family housing
3. Agriculture
4. Environment
5. Attract and retain young families
6. New Energy solutions (distributed and carbon negative?)
7. New transportation solutions
8. Keeping fields and forests intact
9. A new branding element for a 21st century Vermont
Each of the topics above would take a long essay to fully explore. The aim here is only to start the conversation.
None of these topics, important to all Vermonters, should be seen as a “silo” operating independently of the others — as is too often the case. Intentional development strives for results that are greater than the sum of the parts to create a future in which all can thrive.
(See, for example: https://www.transfarmations.com/ or, in Cabot https://www.headwatersvermont.org/home.html)
Consider also that intentional development could also be an element in a dairy farm exit strategy. I read recently that this summer we have already lost 10 dairy farms in the Northeast Kingdom. This is a very serious issue. We do not want fields and forests no longer worked to become fragmented. It is important that we maintain a mixed landscape that supports a broad range of agricultural activities. We want to provide good options to farmers who want to find an alternative path.
Further, given the employment situation, we will not be able to attract and retain young families if there is not good access to the internet — required for remote learning, health care, online economic activities, online meetings, etc. Likewise, we cannot have a “smart grid” that integrates renewable energy, Electric vehicles providing transportation and rolling batteries, Vehicle to Grid (V2G) , transportation as a service (TAS), etc. if the cars, houses, and utilities cannot reliably communicate for proper management. An important question here is whether or not satellite solutions to internet access, such as SpaceX’s Starlink, will be good enough and cost effective. We will know about Starlink by the end of the year. As they say in Missouri, show me, don’t tell me.
It is all so interconnected: a complex system with multiple functions — each sending feedback into the system that then shapes the performance of the whole. Given this, how will we use the paradigm shifts and convergence presently underway in energy, transportation and communications to build a better future for all Vermonters? Will we use them constructively or will be rolled by them?
Clearly, as we go forward, we will need to understand the system dynamics of the interrelated topics above. If you know of the work of Donella Meadows, you will know what this means. Such an approach is also likely to be required to establish the new, forward-looking, goals and metrics we will need for Vermont’s future.
Vermont will be more resilient if we can find ways to create opportunities to energize the many talents we already have in Vermont — the many innovative trades people, farmers, foresters, entrepreneurs, activists and creative thinkers ready to take Vermont into the future that is rapidly emerging. We all want a future in which all can thrive. To this end, does understanding the model of intentional development become a requirement for future political office holders?
The story of the conventional vs. the intentional is old. Two hundred forty-four years ago, in 1776, the first Europeans in Peacham followed an old native trail from Wells River north. That same year that trail became the basis for the Bayley Hazen Military Road — the first interstate in Vermont. Was it an accident that the road ran through Peacham? The settlement of Peacham by Europeans was, most likely, not a result of mainstream approaches but rather the result of an opportunity seen and taken. If we could be intentional in 1776, we can be intentional in 2020. Do we want a government that bets the future of Vermont on current mainstream ideas? Or shall we take a new road, a road not taken?
Consider these things as you vote in August and November. Ask what calls to action would be appropriate and who just might ask them.
