The first public forum between the five Democratic candidates for governor did little to distinguish the candidates from each other on environmental issues, but it’s clear each would take a much different approach than outgoing Gov. Jim Douglas.
I was there for the whole two hours and live-blogged via Twitter. You can see some of my Twitter feed here, (you’ll have to scroll down a few pages as it’s been a couple days). I’ve posted some of the representative Tweets at the bottom of this post.
To watch each speaker yourself, go to VTDigger.org, a new online journalism site I’ve plugged in “Fair Game”. It’s run by former print journalist Anne Galloway. She was at the forum and taped each candidate.
Though Douglas received scant attention by name, several candidates said his administration has been a constant obstacle when it comes to investing resources and effort into: land conservation and affordable housing, local food production, renewable energy, as well as moving Vermont’s environmental legacy forward.
The takeaway? Vermont’s environmentalists are likely to be happy with any of the Democratic candidates — at least as long as the candidates follow through with their campaign promises (cough, cough).
This article appears in Nov 4-10, 2009.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Though Douglas received scant attention by name, several candidates said his administration has been a constant obstacle when it comes to investing resources and effort into: land conservation and affordable housing, local food production, renewable energy, as well as moving Vermont’s environmental legacy forward.”So they would have spent more money than Douglas wanted to. Did they say where they would have gotten this money? Sounds like they didn’t.””We have high-level nuclear waste that is going to be there for thousands of thousands of years, and to the people who want to relicsene Vermont Yankee, I say come down and visit my county, visit my people, and convince them that a nuclear dump in my backyard is what you’d want in your backyard,” said Shumlin.”This is not an argument for not squeezing the most electricity you can get out of Yankee. The so-called “nuclear dump” will be there whether they shut down Yankee early or not. No logic here.
To: WebberYou said, “So they would have spent more money than Douglas wanted to. Did they say where they would have gotten this money? Sounds like they didn’t.”I wasn’t there so I can’t say what the candidates did or didn’t say. But I can tell you that the “all fuels efficiency” bill that Jim Douglas opposed would have been a huge benefit to the state. His own Dept. of Public Service hired an outside consultant to evaluate the potential and they found that the program would save businesses and residents almost $500 million over ten years. The original proposal was to be funded with something like the tiny lines charge that currently pays for Efficiency VT (which has saved us millions but only deals with electricity). It would have saved lots of money, created jobs, reduced our dependence on imported heating fuel, and lowered greenhouse gas emissions. So to paraphrase you, his opposition was illogical. Just like his opposition to the purchase of the Conn. River dams (which would have replaced the power from VT Yankee), Jim Douglas’ position on this issue was short-sighted and just plain stupid.
Ah, yes. The ol’ “spending tons of money would have saved us lots of money” argument. That’s your Prog opinion, sir, and nothing more. And as I recall, the “All Fuels” utility was to be funded by a sleazy, disgraceful, shameful, confiscatory tax on VY, no? According to you, the All Fuels Utility “would have saved lots of money, created jobs, reduced our dependence on imported heating fuel, and lowered greenhouse gas emissions.” Geez, Doug, you left out ending world poverty and curing AIDS.And, assuming we could have afforded the Conn. River dams without dipping into Burlington’s “cash pool” as your friend Mayor Leopold likes to do, why do we have to accept your underlying assumption that the state should be in the business of owning and running hydro dams in the first place? Answer: we don’t. I don’t. I don’t like state-owned business. Tough for you.You’re entitled to your opinion. You do seem to have them, and express them with a certain distasteful arrogance. And if you think your ever-so-enlightend opinion gives you the right to call other people “stupid” who reasonably have a different view of public policy from you, well, that reflects badly on you. Congratulations.
Wow Webber, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what?1. Doug clearly called the policy stupid not the person. BIG difference. Its pretty clear to anyone that is paying attention that Jim Douglas is not stupid. This is no different than your position on state owned business. Pretty sure you think that’s stupid.2. What I will never understand from folks that think like you is why you would prefer to accept a situation that is bad for businesses bottom line over one that is good for the bottom line because of who (the state) owns what? Do you have to accept it as you say, no of course not, but that also certainly doesn’t mean that Vermont owning those dams is stupid. It just means it goes against your philosophy on gov’t.My philosophy, do what’s best for Vermont, Vermonters, and our businesses. If that means state owned great, if it means a partnership between the state and private industry great, and if it means all private fantastic. when any of us get too dogmatic as you appear to be on this issue its only the people of our state that suffer, and that’s just stupid.
“when any of us get too dogmatic as you appear to be”That’s funny. Hoff the Statist is the most “dogmatic” thinker in Burlington. Everybody agrees. You can predict his view with 100% certainty. Every single time. No exceptions.Problem? Blame Douglas.Problem? Spend more gov’t money.Problem? Raise taxes.Problem? Gov’t should hire more workers.Problem? Add more gov’t regulation.Problem? Gov’t should get in the business.Problem? Take another shot at Douglas.I’m dogmatic? Maybe. But, honestly, not as dogmatic as Hoffer. I am in favor of gov’t spending on some things, but not others. But I haven’t seen one single piece of published writing by Hoffer (and trust me, there’s no end to them) in which he addresses a perceived public problem by advocating anything other than, more public spending, higher taxes, greater regulation on business, and bigger gov’t. How is that not “dogmatic”? My wallet cannot take any more of his dogma.Hoffer has been voted as Vermont’s “most dogmatic ‘independent’ policy analyst” in a Seven Days readers’ poll.It’s official.PS, I may have woken up on the wrong side of the bed, but I don’t think I’m the only one who wakes up on the wrong side of the bed every time we are treated to one of Hoffer’s anti-Douglas, smarty-pants-style lectures on public policy.
PS, Okay, he didn’t call Douglas “stupid”; he called his policies “stupid.” I submit: that’s NOT appropriate. It’s just another way of calling Douglas stupid.
Webber,Sorry but no it absolutely is not the same thing. smart people do stupid things all time. If you can’t distinguish between a stupid act by a person and a stupid person you have real problems. In fact, it would call into question any and all of your opinions due to your lack of ability to grasp this rather simple equation.
Whatever you say, Matt.By the way, “smart people do stupid things all time.” I assume you’ll agree that that would define Mayor Kiss.