11 replies to this topic

[jbg]

The article, excerpted below (link) was written by Steve E. Wright, an aquatic biologist and a former commissioner of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. It seems that the incentives for "green" power have trumped not only common sense, but other environmental values. This fanatacism about an unproven problem, anthropogenic global warming ("AGW") is cause an awful lot of damage.

September 28, 2011

The Not-So-Green Mountains

By STEVE E. WRIGHT

Craftsbury, Vt.

BULLDOZERS arrived a couple of weeks ago at the base of the nearby Lowell Mountains and began clawing their way through the forest to the ridgeline, where Green Mountain Power plans to erect 21 wind turbines, each rising to 459 feet from the ground to the tip of the blades.

This desecration, in the name of “green” energy, is taking place in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom on one of the largest tracts of private wild land in the state. Here and in other places — in Maine and off Cape Cod, for instance — the allure of wind power threatens to destroy environmentally sensitive landscapes.

Erecting those turbines along more than three miles of ridgeline requires building roads — with segments of the ridgeline road itself nearly half as wide as one of Vermont’s interstate highways — in places where the travel lanes are now made by bear, moose, bobcat and deer.

******

Ironically, most of the state’s environmental groups have not taken a stand on this ecologically disastrous project. Apparently, they are unwilling to stand in the way of “green” energy development, no matter how much destruction it wreaks upon Vermont’s core asset: the landscape that has made us who we are.

The pursuit of large-scale, ridgeline wind power in Vermont represents a terrible error of vision and planning and a misunderstanding of what a responsible society must do to slow the warming of our planet. It also represents a profound failure to understand the value of our landscape to our souls and our economic future in Vermont.

[Bonam]

Yep I've brought up this issue before, no one cares though. By its very nature, wind power can often be most effective when built along ridgelines, which concentrate wind. Ridgelines, however, tend to be otherwise uninhabited, and building roads and turbines in these areas eradicates wildlife habitat as well as the natural beauty of the area in question.

[jbg]

Yep I've brought up this issue before, no one cares though. By its very nature, wind power can often be most effective when built along ridgelines, which concentrate wind. Ridgelines, however, tend to be otherwise uninhabited, and building roads and turbines in these areas eradicates wildlife habitat as well as the natural beauty of the area in question.

Wonder why Waldo's so silent here. It's eerie.

[Bonam]

Wonder why Waldo's so silent here. It's eerie.

Because global warming is the current fad and other environmental issues are out of vogue.

[waldo]

Wonder why Waldo's so silent here. It's eerie.

eerie? Really? I am heartened to realize you require validation through my comment!

in any case, your pitiful transparent attempt to strike a wedge issue hardly seemed worthy of more than my initial cursory review. And really, this is only your first bait attempt... I'm still debating whether I should wait for another bait... like you recently did chasing me across two separate threads with your exact same post, clamoring for further validation, crying out for my reply/comment!

[waldo]

Because global warming is the current fad and other environmental issues are out of vogue.

fad hey? I'd expect you to be a tad more reserved on your overt baseless generalization, particularly when we have such a fine dish served up by jbg for reference and comparative 'vogue' rendering...

as I interpret jbg's wedge dynamics at play, we have an ~5k of mountain ridgeline that will ultimately host 21 turbines. I also understand that the approval decision was only granted when two MOU's were struck between the recognized governmental stewards of environmental protection within Vermont, the state's Agency of Natural Resources, and the applying power company. As I understand, the MOU's cover strict adherence to environmental restoration, inclusive of a trust sufficient to cover costs associated with ultimate decommissioning (projected 30 year timeline). Now, ultimately, you and I may not like the resultant visual impact of the turbines on the horizon... but... in that comparative 'vogue' balance you beaked off about, how does that visual stack up against the outright devastation of whole western U.S. and Canadian forests as a result of the global warming impacts on pine-beetle devastation, direct and through increased wildfire propensity? Care to strike up a wedge play on that comparative level? Do you have a vogue scale you'd like to bring forward to measure degrees of fad, hey?

[scribblet]

It's similar to Ontario Liberals wanting to put windmills in Scarborough Bluffs, it's a terrible idea and aren't the Bluffs a heritage site ?

I think there's a moratorium on this until October/11 so we'll see what happens after the election, another good reason not to re-elect McGuinty.

http://www.savethebluffs.ca/

[Oleg Bach]

No energy sourse is clean - it`s impossible...even the human machine will eat....work ---- then make a mess when he shits... Kind of a sad joke that God played when he created us - bio-machines that are inefficient and give off waste...If we could use every last bit of energy we consume - we would not need energy...it`s the curse of physical existance.....the best we can to is keep our crap in one pile...and attempt to manage it.....Wind power in time would deplete our bird population and in time a palgue of insects would emerge..we just can`t win.

[jbg]

in any case, your pitiful transparent attempt to strike a wedge issue hardly seemed worthy of more than my initial cursory review.

So, attack when you have no good answer?

[waldo]

Wonder why Waldo's so silent here. It's eerie.

eerie? Really? I am heartened to realize you require validation through my comment!

in any case, your pitiful transparent attempt to strike a wedge issue hardly seemed worthy of more than my initial cursory review. And really, this is only your first bait attempt... I'm still debating whether I should wait for another bait... like you recently did chasing me across two separate threads with your exact same post, clamoring for further validation, crying out for my reply/comment!

So, attack when you have no good answer?

I keep forgetting just how ultra-sensitive you are, particularly when push comes to whine! (sorry, nice try... you were not "attacked").

I gave you an answer... a good answer... wait... a great answer! I highlighted your continued baiting approach and I emphasized your (failed) wedge play. It's unfortunate your wedge play didn't have the foresight to actually check out the decision and realize the MOU's struck to ensure restoration after construction as well as restoration after decommissioning... as brokered between the state of Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources and the applying power company... you know, the Vermont state department mandated as the steward protecting the states environment. Perhaps, while you're shedding crocodile tears over the ~5km of Vermont mountain ridgeline, you might save a few for the massive devastation to U.S. and Canadian forests as attributed to climate change/pine beetle... a recent figure I read had just B.C. forest impact at over 160,000 km2. Perhaps you'd like to sink further by having your initial quote played back to you, hey? Or maybe you'd like to double-down and deny mountain-beetle impacts are as a direct result of global warming... sure you can, right?

This fanatacism about an unproven problem, anthropogenic global warming ("AGW") is cause an awful lot of damage.

[jbg]

Perhaps, while you're shedding crocodile tears over the ~5km of Vermont mountain ridgeline, you might save a few for the massive devastation to U.S. and Canadian forests as attributed to climate change/pine beetle... a recent figure I read had just B.C. forest impact at over 160,000 km2. Perhaps you'd like to sink further by having your initial quote played back to you, hey? Or maybe you'd like to double-down and deny mountain-beetle impacts are as a direct result of global warming... sure you can, right?

With fewer pejoratives you make a good point. If indeed there is global warming, anthropogenic or natural there are consequences.

[waldo]

I gave you an answer... a good answer... wait... a great answer! I highlighted your continued baiting approach and I emphasized your (failed) wedge play. It's unfortunate your wedge play didn't have the foresight to actually check out the decision and realize the MOU's struck to ensure restoration after construction as well as restoration after decommissioning... as brokered between the state of Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources and the applying power company... you know, the Vermont state department mandated as the steward protecting the states environment. Perhaps, while you're shedding crocodile tears over the ~5km of Vermont mountain ridgeline, you might save a few for the massive devastation to U.S. and Canadian forests as attributed to climate change/pine beetle... a recent figure I read had just B.C. forest impact at over 160,000 km2. Perhaps you'd like to sink further by having your initial quote played back to you, hey? Or maybe you'd like to double-down and deny mountain-beetle impacts are as a direct result of global warming... sure you can, right?

If indeed there is global warming, anthropogenic or natural there are consequences.

if? If there is global warming? Anytime you lay a freebie up, you can expect to have it played... you sir, are on the fringe of fringe. Few (any???) "reputable" skeptic/deniers disavow that the relatively recent enhanced and accelerated warming has/is occurring. Since you felt emboldened enough to start this thread, don't hesitate to indicate what you (interpret) as the causal link between the mountain pine-beetle and the devastation of U.S. & Canadian forests... if there isn't global warming, just what do you attribute as the causal link between the U.S. & Canadian forest destruction and the rising encroachment of the mountain pine-beetle?