Life is full of tradeoffs!
Only Moonlight for Vermont?
By GEOFFREY NORMAN
March 9, 2007; Page W11
It probably came as no big surprise to the citizens of Burlington, Vt., this week that their city finished first among 379 metropolitan areas in a "Best Green Places" survey conducted by Country Home magazine. If Burlington hadn't won the contest, it might have led to an emergency session of the state legislature, investigations and, who knows, even special prosecutors. The Green Mountain State is seriously green.
It is also seriously small. Its population of some 600,000 is about equal to that of Charlotte, N.C. Its signature export is maple syrup. None would mistake it for a player on the world stage. Still, the Vermont legislature has lately been engaged -- to the exclusion of just about all other matters -- in a discussion of how it might lead the world in the mortally serious fight against global warming.
The president pro tem of the state Senate, Peter Shumlin, was emphatic on this point. "Historically, when we do bold things in Vermont, others follow," Mr. Shumlin was quoted as saying in January. "It is our moral imperative to lead again . . . and if we succeed in being part of the solution, we can help regain America's moral leadership and trust in the eyes of the rest of the world."
A charming vision. Millions and millions of people in China and India, waiting on orders from little Vermont before they fall-in and march. Las Vegas turning off unnecessary lights to conserve electricity and reduce greenhouse gases because Vermont has shown the way. Movie stars flying coach because they crave approval from the citizens of Bethel, Brattleboro and Bennington.
It's a pretty good bet that whatever the Vermont legislature does about global warming and greenhouse gases, nobody in India or China or anywhere else outside of the state will notice. If every living creature in Vermont disappeared tomorrow, their lack of activity wouldn't compensate for the carbon dioxide produced by one of the coal-fired generating plants that China brings online every 10 days.
So the concern over global warming in Montpelier (the country's only state capital without a McDonald's) seems quixotic on the face of it. And besides, Vermont is already a relative good guy -- its "carbon footprint" is fairly small. Why? Because the state's electricity comes largely from dams and a nuclear plant, called Vermont Yankee, located in the southeastern corner of the state. And here is where the discussion gets really interesting.
We have all become accustomed to political anomalies. Democrats for balanced budgets, Republicans for Wilsonian foreign policies, etc. etc. Now we have, among other odd spectacles, global-warming zealots relentlessly bashing the best available alternative to burning fossil fuels to make electricity. Meanwhile, some serious environmentalists who once opposed nuclear power as a threat to the environment now support it as the most environmentally friendly means of producing large amounts of base-load power (i.e. that is available even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining). Patrick Moore, among the founders of Greenpeace, is one of these converts, and he visited Vermont recently to make the nuclear case. Which, in Vermont, is not about building new plants but about extending the life of the one that is operating now.
The Vermont Yankee plant is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to operate until 2012. The plant's owners -- the Entergy Corp. -- have made an application to extend the license for another 20 years. The state can block the extension by denying permission to store additional spent fuel on site. If this happens, then Vermont's utility companies will be compelled to buy power that is produced by burning fossil fuels. Unless, that is, Vermonters are willing to cut their power consumption by a third -- not likely, since even Ben and Jerry need electricity to make their ice cream -- or find a way to provide the power through renewables.
Wind is the current favorite in that category. But Vermonters have been reluctant to allow the construction of 450-foot-tall towers on their ridgelines, and many of their objections are based on green arguments. Last year, three wind projects were either voted down by referendum or denied permits by regulators who cited -- among other things -- the potential threat to birds and bats from whirling turbine blades. Resistance to wind is, if anything, increasing in Vermont, where uncluttered views are an essential part of the environmental agenda. In other words, it seems unlikely that Vermont will, in five years, find a way to generate a third of the electricity it currently uses through renewable sources.
Still , for more than 20 years now, the Greens of Vermont have wanted to shut down Yankee nuclear plant in the way that Frenchmen of the late 19th century lusted for the liberation of Alsace-Lorraine. Their ardor allows no compromise, no retreat. Shut it down.
Yet if Vermont is truly "bold," as state Sen. Shumlin claims, it could accept the risk of storing spent nuclear fuel or construct bird-chewing wind farms -- or both. In short, it could step up and take a hit for the sake of the environment. If the planet has 10 years to get its act together -- as some of the more messianic prophets of doom-by-global-warming are saying -- then it seems almost suicidal to close down a source of electricity that produces virtually no greenhouse gases, just for the sake of false piety.
A truly "bold," environmentally conscious state would go nuclear even more. Burlington will only really be the "best of" Green Places when local postcards show its charming leafy streets, with a view of Lake Champlain -- and a nuclear power plant looming in the background.
Mr. Norman writes frequently for the Journal and is editor of the Web site vermonttiger.com.
ageous!
Hybrid Mode
