Yale’s stake in sustainable wind development

 

 

The proposal targets a piece of property a half mile down the road from his house. Construction would occur not in his backyard, but someone else’s. But he had shot his first deer there, and in Ira, VT such a fact is important for decades.

David Potter owns property in Ira that has been in his family since 1820. Now, the Vermont Community Wind Farm (VCWF) threatens to erect some 45 wind turbines in this Green Mountain community of roughly 450 res- idents. Ironically, Potter—as the region’s representative in Vermont State Congress—finds himself embroiled as both a landowner and a community voice in a tantalizing preview of an enormous debate over alternative energy development nationwide. Oh, and did I mention that the Yale Investments Office has a stake in the profits?

So we have a situation in which a developer—VCWF—wants to bring wind power to a tiny rural town. Residents question whether they will see enough benefits to justify locally concentrated setbacks including potential noise pollution, clearing of access roads, leveling for turbine foundations, and, most distressingly, an immense alteration to one of the nation’s most treasured and pristine landscapes. Furthermore, Yale is a proven investor of Wagner Forest Management Ltd., a firm that manages not only the 4,000-acre property in Ira but other swaths of sensitive New England forest as well.

The Yale Daily News quotes Potter’s opposition to this “sudden thrusting [of] an industrial complex into what’s really a rural residential neighborhood.” A thrust to some; an investment to others. Eyesores to many; symbols of progress to others. Isaac Arnsdorf’s article has stimulated substantive commentary on the YDN server regarding the controversies inherent in any big investment in a small community.

The question of local cultural and aesthetic sacrifice for a broader good is not a new one. Driving through the Midwest this past summer, I saw an altered landscape—townships reduced to ordered grids of towering windmills. Similarly, the modern shoreline of Hull, Mass. demonstrates how historic New England communities will sacrifice a timeless landscape for renewable initiatives, with just one or two turbines.

The same debate continues to hamper the Cape Wind Project, hung up on minor legislative details even after a painstaking decade-long struggle for community approval. Cape Wind Associates, another private developer, envisions 130 turbines positioned over a wide area of Nantucket Sound. Though the nearest turbine will be four miles from shore and a mere speck on the horizon, the most poignant opposition is still aesthetic sacrifice, even amidst highly debatable positions on complex economic and environmental considerations.

The Cape Cod seascape and Vermont’s Green Mountains are equally precious components of America’s landscape, and Ira necessitates equally substantive town meetings, reviews, impact statements, and federal input before breaking ground. It may seem to complicate things, but shouldn’t Yale, as a significant stakeholder, contribute to this dialogue?

There are two reasons why Yale students should insist on their input. First, as an acclaimed university and respectable institutional investor, Yale should engage as a shareholder in recognition of those communities adversely affected by its investments. Second, Yale has done much to garner its educational opportunities and administrative decision-making towards a necessarily more sustainable future. In this way, the wind proposal is a compelling opportunity for Yalies to wrap their heads around a complex interdisciplinary issue.

“Yale is not talking about its proposed wind turbine project, but the people in Ira, Vt. are,” wrote Vermont native Teddi Lovko in response to last week’s YDN piece. Teddi can’t walk to the Investments Office on Whitney Avenue. The veil of secrecy surrounding Yale’s endowment holdings and the ardent silence that would follow the simplest request for comment might confuse her, a woman whose elected representative is a commiserating neighbor. But her editorial is well-researched and her argument is equitable: The challenge for Ira is that either outcome is positive.

For me, the dichotomy drawn in this debate is ultimately very satisfying. Approval would set an important precedent for renewable energy in New England. On the other hand, its rejection would preserve a section of Vermont landscape and affirm rural community values, which I feel represent a shrinking (though stubborn!) slice of our citizenry.

For other opinionated students, the issue rests not in Ira. We won’t enjoy its energy nor will we give up views of lovely New Haven. The effort stands in convincing Yale that an invested stake—backed by the mission statement of light and truth—subsumes so much more than paperwork behind office doors. If they can debate for two years over installing 10 dinky windmills on top of Becton, then they can admit that they’re paying someone else to do it this time, in somebody else’s backyard.

<—Previous                                                                                              Next—>

3 Responses to “Yale’s stake in sustainable wind development”