“If at this point in this saga anyone still gives a flying fish who I’m voting for, that would be Sue Minter,” McKibben, a Ripton resident and founder of the environmental group 350.org, said in a letter Sunday.
Friday afternoon, Dunne issued a statement saying he supports having communities vote on whether to allow wind projects within their borders. Renewable energy advocates say that runs counter to the practice of establishing energy projects that represent the whole state’s interests but may be opposed in a single community.
Dunne’s statement included praise from the third Democratic candidate, Peter Galbraith, who said: “Matt understands the anguish that large-scale wind projects cause many Vermont communities.” After Dunne released his statement, Seven Days asked McKibben for his thoughts, given that he had endorsed Dunne early in the campaign.
McKibben replied Sunday: “Ask a simple question and someone sends you a thousand-word answer.” Indeed, he did, adding, “and has the temerity to ask that if you want to use it you perhaps do so in whole, so people can read the chain of reasoning.”
Both McKibben’s statement and Dunne’s Friday press release are copied below.
McKibben said in his statement that he disagreed with Dunne on what he considered the candidate’s “about face” on wind.
McKibben said he was shifting his support to Minter, Dunne’s Democratic rival in the August 9 primary election. Minter has received contributions from Vermont wind developer David Blittersdorf.
“I don’t think Dunne’s rotten or a scoundrel; I’m sure that if elected he’ll make a good governor. But I do believe that there’s something to be said for consistency in public life,” McKibben said.
Dunne campaign spokeswoman Jessica Bassett responded Sunday night:
“Bill is a friend, and he and Matt agree on many fronts, including the fact that we need to get to 90 percent renewables by 2050. We hope voters will look at Matt’s record and his position on this issue, which is in line with the Shumlin administration’s current practice. Matt’s not opposed to wind; he’s for community involvement. He’s a fierce advocate for renewables and knows we won’t reach our aggressive goals without community buy-in.”
Gov. Peter Shumlin has said that wind projects should not be built in communities that don’t endorse them, though that has not become a specific barometer for wind projects during Shumlin’s six years in office. Renewable energy advocates have responded to Dunne’s statement more vehemently than they ever did to Shumlin’s broad statement.
Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier), chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said Dunne’s position would make the state’s goal of 90 percent renewable energy by 2050 “impossible to meet.”
Minter has called wind “part of the solution,” while indicating she would emphasize less divisive energy sources.
Here is McKibben’s statement in full.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Matt has done something very rare for a politician: he has listened to us. He has spent time up here in the Northeast Kingdom and heard first hand of the way industrial wind development has negatively impacted our communities. And why should how we feel not count for something?
The wind developers and their enablers (VPIRG, etc.) say that the public overwhelmingly support industrial wind development. So why not trust the public to make the decision? Or does the public only approve of commercial wind in the abstract? Whenever it is actually put to a vote it is usually opposed by wide margins. Maybe the wind people have been blowing smoke at us for a long time.
Matt has NOT taken an anti-wind stance. He has a nuanced approach that leaves it up to the people of Vermont. Why is this bad, I ask?
Matt has always been committed to the goals set in Vermont to address climate change and adopt renewable energy standards. He has also always been committed to the very Vermont principal of community-based decision making. In his statement yesterday on wind power, he was reiterating what he has always believed and always said, that communities must be involved in making decisions about projects happening in their community.
“If at this point in this saga anyone still gives a flying fish who I’m voting for, that would be Sue Minter,”
To this I say ‘Who gives a shit.’
I’m switching my vote to Dunne, so Bill’s vote just got cancelled out.
NIMBYs now trash Bill McKibben too.
I see how many are now labeling Matt as anti-wind. That’s so far from the truth. What’s been most consistent with Matt is his support for small communities. Its reflected in his stance here, as it is with his opposition to parts of Act 46 which would cost many small towns their schools. Its his support of small towns that has been consistent all along with Matt. He’s the small town champion.
Clearly the wind development community has pulled out all stops to skewer any politician like Matt Dunne and Peter Galbraith who would express greater concern for the health and well-being of Vermonters than the profits and false claims of industrial wind and solar developers that their technological fixes will save us from climate change. It shows clearly that Vermont too has been captured by the big money and the out-sized voice in Vermont politics that big energy industry money buys. 162 towns are demanding real say in the siting of industrial renewables in their communities. This is yet another tragic example of how Vermont is no longer the environmentally, community, and people friendly state it once was. So why are so many people from the political left, center and middle going to be voting for Phil Scott some might ask? This is why and why the Dems and Progs are blind to it, it is crystal clear to me. As the Who song from Tommy says, “We’re not gonna take it!”
We all respect Bill McKibben, and follow his lead on so many issues related to climate change and the environment. His 350.org organization has been so important.
But he is ignoring the fact that many environmentalists view ridge-top development as a desecration of what we love about Vermont. Those ridges have been here for millions of years, and to many people that are simply sacred. Anyone who looked at the photos of the devastation to Lowell Mountain during construction will attest to that.
He also is ignoring how much energy waste is going on in the State. On Heating Degree Days, the hottest days of the year in which the public is asked to conserve and turn off their appliances, you will find more than a dozen businesses and restaurants on Church Street with their front doors and windows propped wide open. They are purposely blowing cold air out their front doors to attract diners and shoppers. This happens all over the State. We are destroying our mountaintops, while at the same time encouraging wasteful practices.
There are also environmental impacts of these towers with birds, bats, wildlife, roads being built, water runoff, and noise, to name just a few. Why are we “destroying the environment in order to save it”?
So very disappointed to see the NIMBY term used again by folks with an agenda. It is an insulting term, and many opposed to ridge-top development do not live near these projects.
I wish Bill will reconsider his position, just like Dunne and Galbraith have done. It is possible to support renewables without destroying what we love about Vermont. This is another example of our eroding sense of Community, and it is having a chilling impact upon people who care about the State and the environment.
I would feel a lot better about Dunne’s position on wind if he opposed the fracking pipeline in no uncertain terms.
I support renewable energy generation projects and have done so since the late 1970s.
I also support divestment of the Vermont public employee pension funds from fossil fuel corporations.
And the gas line proposal in western Vermont must be stopped. I was arrested with others back in October 2014 at Shumlin’s office in this effort.
I reject the idea that nuclear power should be accepted as a “bridge” energy source as we transition from fossil fuels.
Having said all that, the process in Vermont for the review and approval of the industrial scale renewable
energy projects is flawed and very inadequate. I base this position on two things: 1) having been involved for over
30 years in the administration of Act 250, I have had the benefit of seeing how effective regulatory controls can
protect finite natural resources and still permit suitable development along with meaningful roles for the public as parties to the proceedings and 2) having been deeply involved over the last 4 years a) in efforts to assist the folks in the NEK as they grapple with the energy corporations before the inept PSB ( which refuses to enforce conditions in existing CPGs for these projects while pushing new projects through the process with less than adequate consideration of substantive issues and b) in the legislature which has denied a fair hearing and equal footing for the folks from the NEK ( and other regions of the state) in the face of intense lobbying by
the corporations along with political $$$ contributions for ( mostly D&P) legislators.
Matt Dunne hasn’t changed his position. He issued something today saying he is following Shumlin’s way of developing wind. How is that opposition in any way? It’s more of the same. More destruction of water resources, community, people’s investments, health and ability to live in their homes. And more damage to systems necessary to address climate change. Climate change activists would do well to read this recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/business…. Translation for New England wind is the more wind we build, the more gas plants we have to build. Spinners can spin any way they want, but when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the answer is fossil fuel generators, and lots more new ones. Support wind, you support gas.
Matt Dunne hasn’t changed his position. He issued something today saying he is following Shumlin’s way of developing wind. How is that opposition in any way? It’s more of the same. More destruction of water resources, community, people’s investments, health and ability to live in their homes. And more damage to systems necessary to address climate change. Climate change activists would do well to read this recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/business…. Translation for New England wind is the more wind we build, the more gas plants we have to build. Spinners can spin any way they want, but when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the answer is fossil fuel generators, and lots more new ones. Support wind, you support gas.
Matt Dunne hasn’t changed his position. He issued a statement today saying he is following the Shumlin path. Doesn’t sound like opposition to me. Wind = gas. If you want more wind, you want more gas generators. Don’t believe me, read this NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/business…
Daune Peterson, President of SunCommon, certainly has plenty of reasons to go after “NIMBYs”, but foremost, they get in his way. If what he calls NIMBYs are now trashing Bill McKibben, I guess what they are doing to Bill is what he wants to do to the Green Mountains.
Well, that’s interesting. However, I still can’t vote for Sue Minter because of her extremist stance on firearms. Universal background checks will not reduce domestic violence, are unenforceable, and are a solution looking for a problem, an irrelevant distraction, and a waste of civic priorities and funding.
“Gun control” is sexist, racist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic. It is not a liberal value, it is anti-Liberty, and I stand against it.
Follow the Money $$$$$$. Big wind and Big solar are busting at the seems with Corporate Greed to the point where they are becoming like the one we’re supposed to hate,,,, Big Oil. Research for yourself the campaign contribution list of both Minter and Dunne and you will find that tons of out of state money is pouring into Vermont. Look at Minter’s hard core line on Gun Control. Her Buddy’s, the fake “Gun Sense VT” loves tons of money from people like Michael Bloomberg. Using this kind of money against Vermonter’s who are the safest state in the Country shows the fact that she puts the out of stater’s before Vermonters. She will do this on everything and anything. Greed First, Power First, Me First. Tons of big Money has everything zooming towards Vermont because people like Minter make it easy for them. I disagree with a lot of Dunne Stuff but at least he shows by this that he’s putting Vermont people as a priority. Phil Scott has a great mix of common sense everything is why people on both sides are voting for him. As far as Big Bill, who on earth cares. If you were to look in his bank accounts, you’d most likely find big wind and big solar money creeping in there too. Greed will Lead and if you wanna find the truth, follow the $$$$$$$.
We are with Matt Dunne on this. Industrial wind power has a dominant impact on the experience of place. Towns should have a say. Nancy and Rob Foote
More specifically, the only way we are going to get to 90% “renewable” (NO form of power production is truly “renewable”) power generation is if we also have a 90% reduction in power consumption.
The average newly constructed residence in the United States comes with 200A electrical service. We need to live our lives on one tenth of that, or the amount of power we can get from a single standard 20A electrical outlet.
We are with Matt on this.
Industrial wind power has a major impact on the experience of place. People living in that place deserve the right to decide. That is the Vermont way.
Bill Mckibben is not a spokesman for my environmentalism . Supporting industrial wind on top of sensitive ridge lines is simply arrogance . To think the little state of Vermont is going to offset Chinese coal plants is a dangerous fantasy .But I’m told Howard Dean made out pretty well selling his land to the Lowell project . The hypocrisy is astounding.
Monster wind machines are a big mistake. They will be obsolete in a decade or so when solar becomes 90 percent efficient as has already been proven in the lab with rectenna. New advancements and discoveries of this magnitude take about three years to hit the stores. I’m old enough to have read one of the first research on the laser, the LED and the first solar cells. Monster wind machines should have more than enough money in escrow for decommissioning. Same for carbon/forest burning biomass facilities. Please don’t take faux green money (wind & biomass) in the campaigns. Take a look to the near future. The future will arrive.
Annette Smith repeats the same mantra about wind power over and over, presumably believing that repetition will make it come true.
“… when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the answer is fossil fuel generators….” That’s ALREADY the answer: most of Vermont’s current electricity comes from natural gas, hydro and nuclear.
But when the wind DOES blow and/or the sun DOES shine, Ms. Smith simply ignores the obvious: less power from the gas plants (perhaps none) will be needed or generated. The plant remains in place for windless or cloudy days, but it is no longer emitting as much greenhouse gas (and other) pollution into the atmosphere.
The need for backup power – which doesn’t HAVE to come from natural gas, although currently in New England, it mostly does – is also only about 5% of what Ms. Smith suggests. Build 1000 MW of wind projects (if anyone thinks that’s at all likely in Vermont), and you’d need roughly 5MW of backup power from other sources. See http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42616.pd…, p. 21 of pdf.
Developing more wind and solar means just what it says, and the consequence of doing so means using LESS power from other sources, including natural gas. That’s why wind and solar are the fast growing energy sources in the US and around the world. Ms. Smith apparently doesn’t get it; fortunately, the rest of the world does.
I’m torn over what to think about community sanctioning of wind power. I completely see the need to avoid NIMBY so that the greater good is served. At the same time, if communities feel steam-rolled by wind power companies, people in those communities might come to resent the idea of alternative energy and be suspicious of all renewable energy projects. Also, doesn’t it strengthen climate activism if proponents of wind must make the case for wind? Activists get a chance to educate people, and people can then learn the nuances of the issue, more so than if a project were simply handed to them. And yet… it’s difficult to “educate” someone out of their love of a mountain view and the belief that their property values will go down in the viewshed of a wind project. I’m glad this McKibben/Dunne exchange is showing what a tough issue this is.
McKibben is not an environmentalist. He’s nothing more than an activist. Middlebury calls him a “distinguished scholar”.
How quickly McKibben, Shumlin, & Minter all champion environmentalism over self-determination. Its the “I know better than you” philosophy that real Vermonters have been confronted with and having to deal with for the last 100 years- dating right back to the Eugenics project. At least McKibben, Shumlin, & Minter have the integrity to do the bidding of their political donors.
Who cares about what Bill McKibben thinks? Mr.McKibben is a journalist and not a scientist, with no academic credentials, whatsoever, in the environmental sciences such as meteorology, oceanography, ecology, environmental engineering, geology, glaciology, marine biology, geomorphology, agronomy, etc. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain. The latest shoddy, bias United Nations IPCC report is another in a series of gloom and doom computer studies of science for politicians, most of which have hardly a high school level of understanding of earth science. If you want to do something about this so-called climate change, rather than blow up the Green Mountains, get out of your car and walk.