When identical twins Lluvia and Emma Mulvaney-Stanak were growing up in Barre, they joined their parents in protesting nuclear power and holding campaign signs at polling places.
Parents Ed Stanak and Joelen Mulvaney taught their two children that you can and should fight city hall. The message took root. Llu’s first job out of college was at Outright Vermont, going to bat for young queer Vermonters’ rights. Emma served on the Burlington City Council and, in 2013, was named chair of the Vermont Progressive Party.
The family has, all this time, hung together when it comes to politics. But 2016 is no ordinary year. This time around, the Mulvaney-Stanak clan is split.
Last week, Ed Stanak publicly declared himself a supporter of Republican gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott. On a list of Democrats, Progressives and independents supporting Scott, Stanak’s name stood out more than most.
This is the same Ed Stanak who, as president of the Vermont State Employees Association, was a labor-activist stick-in-the-craw to former Republican governor Jim Douglas’ administration. This is the same Ed Stanak who ran for attorney general in 2012 under the Progressive Party banner.
“I think, yes, this is the first Republican governor I’ll be voting for,” Stanak said, adding that his wife is on the same page. “This is the first time the daughters and I have a disagreement on political stuff.”
Wind power is what did it for Stanak. After 33 years in state government administering Vermont’s land-use laws, Stanak is worried about the environmental, health and aesthetic impact of industrial wind turbines.
He’s also convinced that the state’s Public Service Board energy approval process is broken — and that anybody who questions wind siting in Vermont is unfairly targeted as a climate-change denier. As a lifelong activist who was arrested fighting plans for a gas pipeline and fought for divestment of the state pension fund from fossil fuels, he doesn’t appreciate that.
So Stanak proudly offered his name up to Scott’s campaign as a supporter.
Llu, meanwhile, is an ardent supporter of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Sue Minter. Now 36 and working as the communications director for Burlington City Arts, Llu had been leaning toward Democrat Matt Dunne in the primary election when Minter’s teenage son, Jasper Goodman, came door-knocking in the neighborhood. He won over at least one Mulvaney-Stanak.
Llu sees the family’s political split as generational. All these years after teaching their children not to get disillusioned about their ability to shape the world around them, Llu’s “aging yippie” parents have become disillusioned, the Minter supporter said.
Llu’s view, meanwhile, is that, “Change comes slow, not fast.”
Llu doesn’t disagree with the senior Stanak that wind power has drawbacks but believes “there are ways to do things that aren’t all or nothing.”
Sister Emma isn’t revealing who she’s supporting in the governor’s race. The Vermont Progressive Party declined to endorse any of the candidates, she noted, and as chair, “I’m staying quiet in my own pick for that office to honor that process.”
Regardless of their newfound political differences, the twins and their parents aren’t holding anything against one another, Llu said. “It’s unconditional love.”
And their differences do not extend, as they do for so many families this year, to the presidential race.
“None of us are voting for Trump,” Llu said. “We’d have to have a family retreat if that were the case.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
It has been a pleasure getting to know Ed over the last several years. He has a tremendous depth of knowledge of the issues related to climate change, energy, environment, and land use. He has an unshakable commitment to social justice (and a revulsion to the exploitation of Vermont’s rural residents by unscrupulous wind developers).
The Doyle Poll last March showed that 90% of Vermonters want communities to have more say in energy siting projects, especially large-scale wind. This was one of the highest numbers ever for a Doyle Poll question.
Ed is rcorrect that the PSB process is broken. The way it has handled the VT Gas pipeline is another excellent example, regardless whether one is in favor or against it.
The Democrats are catering to Big Wind, and ignoring some of their most ardent supporters who care about the environment. Many “green” left-leaning Democrats and Progressives consider the destruction of VT ridge lines a desecration, which require blasting and building roads on our mountaintops. Plus large-scale turbines make little economic sense for Vermont because they produce very little during peak demand – on hot, sunny, calm Summer days. They also kill birds, bats, and wildlife, destroy ecosystems, and create constant noise when they are turning.
It is the hope of many that Scott will change the PSB process, or eliminate the board entirely. The Democrats refuse to even admit there is a problem. Many former Democratic supporters are turning to Scott over this, as Ed has.
I talked with Chris Pearson, P/D, for Chittenden Senate, earlier this year about the PSB, given that I am a pipeline opponent. He agreed at the time that something has to be done about the PSB, and was looking at what other states were doing in this time when fossil fuels are too dangerous to the environment. I suggest mere support for wind turbines on ridgelines should not be equated with support in general for the PSB. Thoughtful people of all parties recognize that an agency adopted to spread electrification through rural states may have outlived its usefulness in 2016.
It’s disturbing that Progressives and Democrats are willing to destroy our mountain tops over the greenwashing false promise of industrial wind energy. The Northern Longeared Bat is already threatened and turbines have been proven to decimate bat populations and displace moose and black bear…
Rock Ridge in Missisquoi (now-called Swanton) is my Standing Rock. Mountain top removal for industrial wind generators will destroy sacred sites. why is mountain top removal bad for coal mining but ok for wind generation? The only candidate promising a moratorium on ridge line destruction is Scott.
It should speak volumes to people who know Ed Stanak that he is supporting Phil Scott for governor, and not buying into the massive ad campaign being conducted by wind proponents hiding behind Planned Parenthood, Vermont Conservation Voters and VPIRG. VPIRG has started running ads in some media outlets and I recognize them as the tired old talking points David Blittersdorf has been using for years. And yes, he is donating to the VCV and Planned Parenthood PACs. One of the ads claims wind and solar balance each other in a distributed system. Except that isn’t how it’s been working in Vermont, and if the idea is you get sun in the daytime and wind and night, there’s that problem that the noise from the wind turbines keeps people from sleeping. I am encountering a lot of undecided Vermonters who are being swayed by the wind proponents’ propaganda. If you’re suspicious or wary of all those mailers you’re getting, good for you, follow your instincts. And listen to Ed.
Very informative comments everybody. It does appear that Scott is winning over many left-leaning environmentalists because he has shown a concern for VT’s ridge lines, while the Democrats are not.
The Democrats still continue to lump wind and solar projects together as “renewables”, even though their impact and output is entirely different. They have about as much in common as coal has with nuclear. And nuclear was even once considered “green” by its proponents. Some still do, believe it or not.
Not only does wind generally not produce much power when we need it the most (hot, sunny days), but getting it into the grid is problematic. This is largely due to lack of demand at the times it produces power, as well as distance from electric lines and communities. Whereas solar is generally located right near existing power lines, close to residential areas, has minimal environmental impact, and produces the most power when it is needed.
Hydro is also considered “renewable”, but you won’t see any efforts to build more dams. In fact, we’re decommissioning them due to their environmental impact. Big Wind is similar in that regard.
What informed conservationists and environmentalists in Vermont have been witnessing under Shumlin and Markowitz’ leadership is nothing short of shocking. VCE conducted an investigation of the GMP Lowell Mountain wind site in July, in which we documented numerous problems with the stormwater system, along with dying trees and use of herbicides in high elevations including next to water features. Last Friday ANR dismissed all the issues and gave the site its blessing. VCE stands by its report that documents the failures of the stormwater system, and believes ANR is now complicit in covering up the problems. Here is the ANR response to our report https://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wor…. It is for reasons like this that people like Ed Stanak are supporting Phil Scott and seeking change. Apparently Sue Minter would continue throwing out our environmental protections by keeping Deb Markowitz in the job assuring that our most sensitive ecosystems continue to be degraded.
You are absolutely correct, Annette, that Deb Markowitz and ANR have been ignoring and not enforcing environmental regulations during her tenure. I have personally brought violations to her attention, only to have the concerns dismissed. Others have had the exact same experience.
And these had nothing to do with wind, solar, or even the VT Gas projects. It became clear that pointing out violations or broken review processes was simply wasted breath.
Sadly, the policy at ANR is one of a laissez-faire attitute. It’s undetermined if this directive is coming directly from Shumlin, but either way, Markowitz is going along with it. No one expects this to change under Minter.
too little too late….I’m not disillusioned, not having been illusion about politics for some time. Vermont ridge lines are our Standing Rock as are Lake Champlain, the National Forest and the Conn. River watershed where dam license renewals threaten to increase capacity.
As in Dan Kerrigan’s comments, “when hope is lost persevere…”