And will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth?

The title is an homage to a classic “Beyond the Fringe” skit, which is not only fall-down funny, it’s also a pretty good depiction of your typical anti-wind demo.

Something’s been bugging me for quite a while now, but it hadn’t quite crystallized until I read the following paragraph a few days ago in a VTDigger story about a three-year moratorium on new utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, proposed by Senators Joe Benning and Bob Hartwell:

The proposal comes one year after the Senate shot down a similar draft legislation Benning sponsored, which called for a two-year moratorium on projects 2.2 megawatts or greater. Since then, opposition to wind projects has grown, with a Montpelier demonstration in autumn drawing nearly 200 protestors.

The key phrase: “Since then, opposition to wind projects has grown.”


By what objective measure? What facts, what pattern supports that conclusion?

The only proof cited is a single demonstration that drew “nearly 200.” Is that really sufficient proof of the assertion? Seems pretty damn thin to me, even if VTDigger did wrongly choose to characterize that gathering as a “throng.”

I see no evidence of an anti-wind groundswell. What I see is a small group of very determined activists who’ve leveraged a great deal of media coverage. Let’s look at the available data.  

In May of 2012, a Castleton Polling Institute survey showed 70% support for wind power, 17% opposition, and 13% not sure.

During the 2012 campaign, Governor Shumlin made no secret of his support for wind energy. Randy Brock tried to capitalize on anti-wind sentiment, while anti-wind activist Annette Smith launched an ill-fated campaign for Governor — first as a Prog, then as a write-in. But in spite of Digger’s claim of growing opposition, the anti-wind crowd had no discernible effect on the November election. Smith drew no more than a few hundred votes, and Shumiln sailed to an easy victory.

It was, to return to that Beyond the Fringe skit, “not quite the conflagration we were banking on.”

None of this proves that anti-wind sentiment has stayed pretty much the same — a concern of a small minority — but it certainly runs counter to VTDigger’s assertion that opposition to wind power is on the rise.

I’ve been an observer of politics since the late 1960s, and I have never, ever seen a protest movement get so much coverage out of such small crowds. The notorious “throng” of 200 was, by far, the largest anti-wind gathering in Vermont. The others have attracted somewhere between a handful and a few dozen.

And every single one of them has attracted generous media coverage. As has every permit filing, every groundbreaking, every compliant of excessive noise or other alleged problems, every court case or threatened lawsuit, and (most absurd of all) every transportation of turbine parts toward construction sites.

So why has the media given so much coverage to such a small movement? I have a few theories.

— Many of the protests are picturesque. A demonstration on a mountain or in the forest makes pretty pictures and good video for the 6:00 news. Much better than the same number of people carrying signs in front of the Statehouse (yawn).

— There’s something Vermonty about the whole thing. Salts of the earth, sons of the Green Mountains, garbed in flannel, fleece, or down, seeking to preserve smallness against the assault of the Big. It speaks to some of our most cherished myths about ourselves and our state.

Yes, I said “myths.”

— Some reporters are favorably inclined to the anti-wind cause. I’ve heard this, off the record, from some media folks. It’s sometimes fairly obvious in their coverage (“throng,” indeed). And I’m sure the ill-advised prosecution of Chris Braithwaite didn’t exactly endear wind developers to the state’s journalists.

— Some media outlets tilt to the right, and the right tends to be anti-wind. Not because they’re environmentalists, but because (1) they’re pro-business and anti-climate change, (2) a lot of rich people own rural property and don’t want turbines messing up their views, and (3) they’ll use any handy issue to slam the Shumlin Administration.

— Monkey see, monkey do. If some media outlets are covering anti-wind protests, then others will follow. And actually, that’s the only objectively provable momentum in the anti-wind movement: the year 2012 saw an increase in coverage of anti-wind protests.

It also didn’t help that most Vermont environmental groups have treated anti-wind protests as John Kerry did the Swift Boaters in 2004 — ignoring rather than confronting. I was glad to see several of them (including VPIRG, VNRC, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the Vermont Sierra Club) come out in opposition to the wind moratorium last week, and I wonder where the hell they were all of last year. They should have been out front with their own positions and their own scientific information.

Another thing I’d like to see happen: I’d love it if the media actually examined the anti-wind movement. How many people are really involved? Where do anti-wind organizations like Energize Vermont get their money? They aren’t legally required to report their donations, donors, membership numbers, spending or budgets, and they haven’t volunteered to do so. Also, it’d be good if some enterprising reporter took a look at the “scientific studies” used by the anti-wind folks. Some anti-wind activists, and some alleged scientists, get their support from the fossil fuel industry.

And one final factor in the media’s overestimation of the anti-wind folks: The Comments section. Whenever anyone posts a story about wind energy, there’s a flurry of comments — many of them from the same small number of anti-wind hardliners. Online comments, however, are no reflection whatsoever of a website’s overall readership. The vast majority of online readers never post a comment, and most never even read the comments. But when a reporter or a media outlet sees a long string of comments, it tends to affect their thinking. In this case, makes them overestimate the size of the anti-wind movement.

Which is, I say again, small. And only as influential as their outsized reputation allows them to be.  

8 thoughts on “And will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth?

  1. I agree with your assessments, and that movements tend to try to look well organized & massive, however I wouldn’t care if it was. Wind power has been around for a long time while renewables have been overshadowed by carbon & nuclear which is clearly special interest & profit-driven. We now need the alternatives renewables provide.

    I honestly do not think they are unsightly, actually kind of cute & friendly looking. No, I would not mind having one literally in my backyard.

    No one really seems to care about the suffering & misery to residents caused by drilling ‘mishaps’ or the associated problems with other forms of energy production, uranium mining in Niger & the indigenous workers who become sicker & sicker until they drop dead in their 20s, all the while being told by the ‘company hospital’ there is nothing wrong.

    Relatively few northern Vermonters seemed to care about a nuclear power plant in VT as long as it was not in their backyard, the push to close VY was primarily from legislators & those who would be most affected in the event of a catastrophic occurance, many live near the plant but are not even Vermonters.  

  2. The notorious “throng” of 200 was, by far, the largest anti-wind gathering in Vermont. The others have attracted somewhere between a handful and a few dozen.

    And there, in your own words, is the basis for the VtDigger reporter’s assertion that opposition to large-scale wind development on ridgelines is rising.

    I’ve got no axe to grind here. I’m not necessarily opposed to wind – in fact I think it’s probably a good idea. I tend to be skeptical of almost anything big power companies do, especially when they crank up the propaganda machine to sell any given project to the rest of us. Such projects are never as good for us as they are for the companies – remember the pitch for and later abandonment of (sale to Entergy Louisiana) nuclear power by Vermont utilities, and the heavily propagandized merger of CVPS and GMP which disappeared the $21 million “loan” (through higher rates) into amorphous “efficiency” projects primarily benefiting big businesses.

    You make other points worth considering, and it’s true that few demonstrations of less than 500 people garner as much media coverage as the anti-wind folks have. Part of the attraction is undoubtedly the “counter-intuitiveness” of ecologically-minded, liberal, climate-change-aware Vermonters opposing the use of an essentially perpetually renewable energy resource. But your ridicule of VtDigger for suggesting that more people are demonstrating (“opposition … has grown”) than was the case a few months ago seems out of proportion.

    I also think that the anti-wind folks have some arguments worth listening to. Since you’re not living with 19 turbines in your backyard, you might consider being a bit more cautious about dismissing noise, vibration, and other complaints as “alleged.” Unless, of course, you’re a true-believing disciple of wind power as practiced by Gaz Metro-owned GMP, in which case, by all means, carry on.


    Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. ~ Winston Churchill

  3. I love seeing the turbines spinning on Georgia Mtn.  So gorgeous in the sun and snow, especially when compared to cell towers and phone poles.

    I understand some of the impact stuff (runoff, etc), but we clearly can mitigate those.

  4. really understand the whole ‘view shed’ argument. Yes, we shouldn’t place them on every mountain top and hilltop from Highgate to Bennington, but come on.  Look out most any window in any VT town and you’ll see drooping power lines, a mish mash of various boxes bolted to haphazardly placed wooden poles (some with cross bars and framing) signs for local businesses in various states of disrepair, construction equipment, street signage, etc…. where were all the folks screaming about ruining the view when the electric poles went in? How about when the cable companies added their lines? Or when the internet companies added those little boxes. And then the radio towers, the wire TV antennae that used to grace houses, the sat dishes, the tumbling recycling bins, etc. etc. etc.

    Totally open for discussion on who should own them (VT or local cooperatives would be my first choice), then how to site them with regards to the science of wind and generation and payback, and finally with the aesthetic concerns…

    From where I sit, with a near daily view to Lake Champlain, I wouldn’t mind them gracing parts of our almost great lake… if it made sense for the power generating capabilities and the siting, and if BTV electric owned them.

  5. there could be miniature turbines which are fully functioning & really do work but that supply a lesser amount of power but are suitable for backyards for those who wish to contribute on a smaller scale.

    A great way to teach children about renewables & maybe smaller versions of all renewables could be developed. A cute hydro dam or for the stream in the backyard opportunities could be endless.

  6. I do remember in my childhood reading stories geared for young readers about opposition to utility poles when they first were installed during the time when there was this type of thing happening w/ppl reportedly saying things like they could fall & kill someone walking down the street & other silliness but I can’t find the info source.

    I grew up in a town on a highway heavily traveled. It was crash boom bang. When the tractor trailers drove by they hit the RR tracks with a thunk over & over.

    Train tracks were within spitting distance & there were lots of trains & whistles, we thought nothing of it. Think of it-there’s noise everywhere. I have even heard of angry neighbors freaking out about someones wind chimes which I have always found comforting & mystical, so perhaps some have a low noise tolerance.

    VT is not a theme park. We live, work & breathe here. I agree with zoning & limiting growth for practical reasons as well as aesthetics but for some reason I have just never objected to wind turbines.  

  7. I think there is probably room in our energy portfolio for larger-scaled, centralized wind gen (that yes, probably is run by corpos) as well as local and hyperlocal approaches.  I’d love to see Fed and State support for municipal and residential wind and solar.

  8. It’s two problems, really. One is actual production, and the other is cost per kilowatt-hour.

    From my work in the residential renewable energy biz I (and others before me) have found that a big problem with residential-scale wind power is that most people don’t live where there is real wind. That is, strong, non-turbulent, and common. Most Vermonters live in river valleys. The amount of extractable energy in wind goes up by the cube of the wind speed. Double the speed, 8 times the potential energy. Down in the valley all you have is a kinetic sculpture. Hence the ridgelines.

    The other problem is fixed costs. The costs of the tower, foundation, wire, electronics, and electrical connection are not tightly related to the actual size of the turbine. Their relative costs go up sharply as the size of the turbine goes down. As a result, the cost per delivered kilowatt-hour goes up sharply as the size of the turbine goes down. Hence those huge ones.

    And, by the way, a cute hydro dam in the backyard requires almost as much permitting effort as a megawatt scale dam on the Colorado River. There is a weird gap in the law. A lawyer from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission once said to me, “5 watts or 5 megawatts, it’s the same process.” Residential scale hydro is essentially impossible from a legal standpoint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *