The notion that pristine, shiny, new solar panels and wind turbines mar
the elegant vista of our landscape is a funny concept. Somehow, the
dilapidated structures, auto salvage yards, and miscellaneous debris
strewn about various properties in The Valley are not an aesthetic
issue.
No one seems terribly concerned that the Skatium, right next door to my
business location, has left (for dead) a giant heap of dead
refrigerating tubes on the marshland in plain view. And how about the
ski trails? We can define them as "beautiful" because we want them, but
they are in no way natural or original to our landscape. They present as
a quasi-volcanic flow of whiteness. Not that I'm anti-slope. Just
making a point.
My second (and maybe more important) point, why are solar energy panels
not just as much a part of a working farm as a tractor or a barn?
They're just another part of the "plant." What separates the panels from
any other part of the operation? A shiny orange Kubota tractor doesn't
exactly scream old-world Vermont, but we embrace it. What makes a wind
turbine on a homestead any different than a chimney billowing wood smoke
in winter? Nostalgia is not a valid answer.
And lastly, why are we not simply (and gosh-by-golly) proud of these
monuments of energy self-sufficiency? Should we not be happy to see wind
turbines and solar panels as a visible symbol of our stand against
fossil fuels, environmental destruction, and dangerous working
conditions? If I were a top-flight lawyer, I might even consider a
class-action manslaughter and environmental contamination suit against
all those who work against these clean energy alternatives simply for
aesthetic reasons. In my view, it's just reckless and ignorant.
Dan Holtz
Waitsfield
{loadnavigation}
