Environmental activist Bill McKibben said Sunday that he made a mistake endorsing Matt Dunne for governor and was switching to rival Democratic candidate Sue Minter because of Dunne’s revised position on wind power.
“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.
“Towards the end of last Friday afternoon, something happened that convinced me I’d made a mistake,” McKibben wrote. “Windpower is not the only, or even the most important, energy issue of the moment (that would be the shameful fracked-gas pipeline now being built along the state’s western edge, a relic of our energy past even before its rushed completion). But it is important. And its importance means [a] candidate’s basic positions on it shouldn’t shift overnight, and certainly not once early voting in a crucial election has begun.”
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.
And here’s the text from Dunne’s press release:
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
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.
I would feel a lot better about Dunne’s position on wind if he opposed the fracking pipeline in no uncertain terms.
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.
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!”
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.
NIMBYs now trash Bill McKibben too.
I’m switching my vote to Dunne, so Bill’s vote just got cancelled out.
“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.’
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.
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?