Dubie Does Tree-Huggers

Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie [right] gave some lively opening remarks at the packed Renewable Energy Conference at the Sheraton-Burlington this morning. "Wind power " and photovoltaics were gospel and Doobie-Doo expressed an open-mindedness on the issue not shared with his running mate - Gov. Jim Douglas.

As morning keynote speaker Paul Gipe put it later, "Vermont is resting on its laurels" when it comes to its environmental reputation. Wind energy in the Green Mountain state is sorely lagging.

"These things we can do together and these things we should do together, and from the perspective where I sit, although there are differences between our governor and our legislature and individuals," said Dubie, "we’re gonna work through those differences and we’re gonna find solutions and we’re gonna continue to move this state forward. Together.

"I’m gonna close with a conversation I had a year ago on a roof-top in Iraq," said Brian. "On a Baghdad evening, while I looked over the skyline, it was a beautiful night, but it wasn’t peaceful. And I was sitting next to a commanding general and he turned to me and he said ‘We need to find ways to make America less dependent on oil from dangerous parts of the world.'

"It is my belief that the work that you do is really carrying on the challenge that that general gave to me," Dubie told the green energy crowd.

"So I applaud you. We need you. We need you to inspire the next generation. We need you to help us train and retain the next workforce. We need you to enhance our moral authority around the world and we can do that by having a more energy-independent nation.

"I want to repeat that: Your work will enhance our moral authority around the world. Think about that for a while. I’ve heard people say that," said our GOP Lite-Gov, " and it makes sense to me."

Yes. He really said that.

I'm heading back for the afternoon session....

Comments

[vermonter]

If the Legislature wanted to differentiate itself from the Governor on wind energy in Vermont, there's lots of things they could do and lots of bills they could pass. Number one, they could outlaw or limit nuisance suits. Maybe such a measure would get vetoed, but at least they would have tried.

The Legislature won't do it because they don't want to piss off constituents in their districts who "don't want to see wind turbines in their view."

The Legislature is no better than the Governor on wind power.

[mtbikevt]

I'm certainly no Lawyer but I found it hard to believe one would be able to "limit" nuisance suits. So the legislature would decide which things the public is allowed to protest. Sounds like a real winner of an idea.

I only say this becasue I don't think the legislature not stopping nuisance suits makes them anti-wind or hypocrites. They recognize one has to take the good with the bad. They certainly don't want to prevent people from trying to stop, say, Wal-Mart.

[Dan]

mtbikevt, it isn't hard to believe since the legislature can and has passed laws limiting nuisance suits. (see http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/DOCS/2004/ACTS/ACT149.HTM
CHAPTER 195. NUISANCE SUITS AGAINST AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES) Not saying it's a good idea, but it certainly wouldn't be anything new.

[youbet]

Nice photo, but where's Dube?

[vermonter]

You certainly can limit lawsuits, w/i constitutional limitations. A statute of limitations is a limitation on one's right to bring a lawsuit. Yet there's nothing unsonstitutional about it. A statute that says you can't sue a farmer for farming is a limitation on lawsuits, but there is such a statute.

If we were serious about promoting windpower, we would limit the "ruin my view" lawsuits that someone can bring. Just ask Jonathan Fishman and others.

[tight_white_pants]

"we would limit the "ruin my view" lawsuits that someone can bring. "

That's a can of worms. Unfortunately viewage sets property prices. By suing, a person is really just protecting their investment.

I still don't know how its ok to stripe our hills with ski trails and lifts, yet it's almost unthinkable to put up a cell tower or windmill.

[bigbadbrad]

Holly crap! I agree with Vermonter on something! Personally, if it is done right,I think windmills are esteticly pleasing.

[vermonter]

"That's a can of worms. Unfortunately viewage sets property prices. By suing, a person is really just protecting their investment."

Ah. Another "I-didn't-move-to-Vermont-to-look-at-windmills" flatlander liberal hypocrite heard from?

[jpc]

"I still don't know how its ok to stripe our hills with ski trails and lifts, yet it's almost unthinkable to put up a cell tower or windmill."

Try and get permits for a brand new ski resort. I am betting you may run into some opposition.

[JSF]

esteticly? Wow! There's a child that was left behind in this chatroom.

[tight_white_pants]

"Ah. Another "I-didn't-move-to-Vermont-to-look-at-windmills" flatlander liberal hypocrite heard from?"

I see you've been taking lessons.

I was just pointing out the obvious. You can be sure that the property rights and realty lobby would be all over any sort of limitations.

Ever sit in on a zoning board meeting?

[clar-z]

There are a number of reasons to oppose large-scale industrial devlopment of remote wilderness areas. Views are the least of them. I wonder how many regional plans or planning laws encourage industrial development in the middle of nowhere on nountaintops? How many environmentalists or naturalists think blasting the tops of the ridges is good for the environment? (Try putting a tradional industrial park up there and see what happens.)
Small wind is sensible, cheaper, easier to do and more acceptable to enviromentalist. Why isn't that happening? I suspect it is because of greed, pure and simple. Wind is all about making money, not creating clean energy. Most people are sick to death of the greenwashing.

[tight_white_pants]

"Most people"

blogger translation:

1) I'm pretty sure people agree with me
2) My friend and I talked about it
3) I read it on a blog
4) It must be true

[clar-z]

LOL. OKay tight-white-pants. I will rephrase that.
Delete my last line and insert:
1. People are sick to death of greenwashing.
2. Greenwashing is making people sick.
3. Sick greenwashers are not people.
4. Everyone I know is sick to death of greenwashing.
OR
5. If you don't believe me, ask tight-white-pants.

[vermonter]

Um . . . the fact that some people will make money from windpower, whether it's large scale or small scale, does not make it a bad thing. And your suggestion that "small scale" wind isn't "happening" because of "greed" appears to be unsupported speculation.

The explanation for the relatively slow development of private wind power in Vermont appears not to be "greed," but neighbor opposition. I know of several people who've tried to put turbines up on their property and have been shot down by the expense of fighting neighbor opposition. I.e., NIMBYism. Otherwise politically correct Vermonters appear to be experts at supporting wind "somewhere else."

[clar-z]

vermonter,
That is unfortunate. Small wind, on private property where it does not impact others or destroy habitat, does not come up much where I live. It is too bad that it is being shot down when people are trying to give it a try. What does come up, over and over, is massive development proposals that are very much about making a lot of money, but are "promoted" as being the way to solve the oil dependency issue, etc.
It isn't that making money is bad, it pretending otherwise that is deceitful and insulting to people who understand these business practices.
Scare tactics, trying to buy-off towns where people don't have high incomes or many businesses that pay into the town coffers, and spreading misinformation are common tactics for big wind developers where I live.
It all works to some extent.
It is discouraging.
They are creating strong opposition. The higher prupose of energy independence and lower carbon emissions gets lost in all of this.
We need a better approach to the problem in my view. Saying that opposition is really about NIMBYism is selling the whole thing short and trivializing people's valid concerns. This doesn't move the process forward.

[JPC]

Illuzi got one put up at his house with out any trouble, of course I doubt he bothered going through the proper channels, not Vince's style.

[clar-z]

LOL. Yup, but it fell over. Not good for promoting small wind....

[vermonter]

"Saying that opposition is really about NIMBYism is selling the whole thing short and trivializing people's valid concerns. This doesn't move the process forward."

No, it's NIMBYism.

In order to put a wind turbine on MY property, I have to apply for and get an approval from the Public Service Board. Once I get that, no neighbor should have the right to sue me in superior court because my turbine will harm their view.

Period.

[JPC]

What if the noise drives them or their pets crazy, would they be able to sue you then? What if they have to start picking up a lot of dead birds, could that be considered littering? If they were endangered would that constitute a crime? I agree a view should not be grounds for a lawsuit, you are only in control of your property and in reality you have very little control over it.

[Brattlerouser]

Some of it's NIMBYism. In Searsburg that is definitely the case. In Wilmington, it's all about the ridgelines being cut up. Now there's this thing called "Wind Turbine Syndrome" which can cause vertigo, depression, loss of balance, irritability, seizures, etc. I don't necessarily buy it but some do in the Deerfield Valley where they're planning to build 17 windturbines.... each of them will be 408 feet high, approximately 100 taller than the Statue of Liberty. Picture that.

I personally hope they go up. Searsburg and Wilmington will put up a fight but I think PPM will get their certificate of public good down here.

[vermonter]

"What if the noise drives them or their pets crazy, would they be able to sue you then? What if they have to start picking up a lot of dead birds, could that be considered littering?"

All of thoise considerations (and many more) are run through the incredibly long and arduous PSB process, as I'm sure you know. You won't get your permit if your installation will do those things. And if you get your pemit but violate it, then the neighbors can sue you for violating the permit.

But if you get a permit for a wind tower and you aren't violating it, and your neighbors sue you because they just don't like it, then TOUGH. Yes, there could be and should be a law that says your neighbors can't sue you for putting up a PERMITTED wind turbine.

And "wind turbine syndrome" is just so obvious baloney. Translation: we don't want to look at wind towers -- that's not why we moved to Vermont.

[Brattlerouser]

I too agree that Wind Turbine Syndrome is baloney.... but society treated Rachel Carson the same and look how wrong she was on DDT.

Just as long as they don't build the turbines within a mile in a half people should be all right.

In the meantime, check out what all this means.

[sandy ward]

Hey, Dubie, I thought it was 'take Vermont from behind'?

[Vermonter]

Oh my god, Wind Turbine Syndrome is such nonsense! There is always someone with a "degree" who will say anything, and some Vermonters will buy it.