Vermont

Q4 Advances in artificial intelligence and expansion of data centers are expected to affect industries such as manufacturing, healthcare, education, and transportation across the country. What policies, if any, do you plan to implement to address these potential impacts in Vermont?

“CI will push for stronger restrictions on data center development, in particular requiring any new data centers to use only renewable energy sources. While there are roles for artificial intelligence, it’s not clear how successful they will be, especially if there are no guardrails in place to prevent unexpected and unwanted consequences of its widespread use. I am skeptical of some claims and predictions of what AI can do, and I believe we should proceed with caution. AI is still in its infancy. It needs regulation and oversight by humans and probably will for a long time.”

KEYWORDS: AI requires oversight

Q4 Advances in artificial intelligence and expansion of data centers are expected to affect industries such as manufacturing, healthcare, education, and transportation across the country. What policies, if any, do you plan to implement to address these potential impacts in Vermont?

“Once again Vt looks to jump in with both looking to block an emerging technology instead of looking for benefits and waiting to see how bigger richer states proceed. It is impossible for us to foresee where this technology will lead. It will take at least a beginning of a track record before we can better judge where the path might go. One thing for sure – It is headed somewhere and will not be stopped. We can get on the train or stand in front of it. As far as energy goes, our politicians have made questionable decisions in the past…again pushed by the hype of those same so-called environmentalists and uninformed/misinformed citizenry.

Our decisions should be well informed via testimony from a broad array of technical and knowledgeable people…not just a few select, like minded folks. Or those with matching private agendas.

Of course, this all presumes that our elected officials can objectively make good decisions and policy. Judge for yourself how that has been going.”

KEYWORDS:

Q5 Electricity demand is increasing due to manufacturing, electrification, and data infrastructure. What role, if any, do you believe developing alternative energy sources should contribute to the country’s future energy mix? What plans, if any, do you have to develop these alternative energy sources in Vermont, and how might they affect job opportunities in the state (if at all)?

“We are still in the early phase of the transition from fossil fuels, but the outcome is already clear. Wind and solar are already less expensive to implement than any traditional energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear. Continued development and improvements in efficiency will only lower the costs of alternative energy. States like Virginia that suport alternative energy already have lower energy costs for their citizens. We should too.”

KEYWORDS: alternative energy now

Q5 Electricity demand is increasing due to manufacturing, electrification, and data infrastructure. What role, if any, do you believe developing alternative energy sources should contribute to the country’s future energy mix? What plans, if any, do you have to develop these alternative energy sources in Vermont, and how might they affect job opportunities in the state (if at all)?

“Our politicians shut down VT Yankee. Again, all hype. No, real technical or financial reasons that I am aware of. We are going to need more electricity. Our transmission system is aging and not robust enough. We have no significant hydropower to develop, we could be burning more wood (yes, our forests are aging, our age-structure and diversity has been limited by historical forest and land-use practices, once again the has been hype for “old growth” which is well and good, however, if our forests are not managed well…fuel will eventually reach levels where…once again, our forests will burn like they did in the past. Maybe, better to burn a little for electricity?) Coal is not popular, Gas might be feasible, but distribution issues will remain.

The future will be with nuclear energy. I have no doubt at this point. The technology has been rapidly advancing. Small, modular nuclear plants are designed for safety, don’t use water for cooling, have, close to zero emissions and could be dispersed and placed in such a way as to allow growth despite our aging transmission system. Check out Valar Atomics and other companies developing microreactors.

Once again, I would advise a close look before jumping in with both feet.”

KEYWORDS:

Q1 What policies, if any, do you support or envision in managing land-based resources in Vermont (i.e. water, open-space preserves, parks)?

“I grew up in a mill town in Connecticut where the river was polluted beyond the point where it would sustain life. I know the damage that unrestrained industrial development can cause. I support responsible stewardship of all of our natural resources. Critical resources and habitats must be protected. There is a place for responsible development, both residential and commercial, but not at the expense of our envronment, wildlife and other natural resources.”

KEYWORDS: responsible stewardship

Q2 Natural resources and the natural environment in Vermont contribute to tourism, public health, agriculture, and manufacturing production. What policies, if any, do you support that could contribute to environmental stewardship, environmental research, or environmental protections in Vermont?

“Act 250 is a good starting point for protecting natural resources, but some of its provisions are burdensome to small landowners and farmers. Better mapping of critical resources such as headwaters and wildlife habitats and corridors would ease some of the expense and time require for permiting developments while still – and perhaps better – protecting natural resources. The state should provide better resources to promote needed development in appropriate areas while protecting the environment and natural beauty of our state.”

KEYWORDS: support responsible development

Q3 Vermont is facing growing flood risk, reduced snowpack, and altered forest composition. What policies, if any, do you support in addressing how natural disasters are affecting industries and life in Vermont?

“All of there are a direct result of climate change. We need to prioritize renewable energy, especially solar, wind and geothermal, to reduce greenhouse gases. When necessary, we need to counter federal policies that support fossil fuel use and development at the expense of alternative green energy sources. Fossil fuel companies should be held accountable for the damage they have caused to the planet, including to the point of paying for our efforts to reduce the impact and recover from damages caused by climate change.”

KEYWORDS: science-based climate policies

Q1 What policies, if any, do you support or envision in managing land-based resources in Vermont (i.e. water, open-space preserves, parks)?

“Our water resources are renewable and quite valuable today. However, they have been substantially degraded by past land and water use practices. It is in the best interest of Vermont’s community as a whole to restore our rivers and lakes along with the fish, wildlife the ecosystems they depend on.

For example, I have long advocated for things like removal of the Swanton Dam which would upon up 7 1/2 miles of the lower Missisquoi River to return spawning walleye, lake sturgeon, redhorse suckers, and other species to

spawning habitat at Highgate Falls; the separation of storm water from our cities sewage treatment plants; as well as reasonable control of agricultural, forestry, urban, roadway and other sources nutrients and sediments are other places on which to focus attention and action.

Lands that have been acquired for public use should be managed sustainably such that those uses can be provided for to as many people as feasible. There are some special cases. For example, Fish and Wildlife Lands have been purchased and managed almost entirely by taxes and fees charged to hunters, anglers and trappers. That investment should and must be respected. I say “must” because federal grants received each year from the Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson excise taxes are contingent upon maintaining the intended use. The same may be said for city and state parks recognizing their intended uses and funding streams.”

KEYWORDS:

Q2 Natural resources and the natural environment in Vermont contribute to tourism, public health, agriculture, and manufacturing production. What policies, if any, do you support that could contribute to environmental stewardship, environmental research, or environmental protections in Vermont?

“We need to be properly funding and supporting the agencies responsible for these tasks. At the same time, we should be questioning them when there actions don’t make sense and encouraging them when they to do good things. All of these agencies have highly trained professional staff capable of doing the job. They need to carry out sound policies and provide the technical expertise and testimony that legislature should be using as the basis for good policy.

KEYWORDS:

Q3 Vermont is facing growing flood risk, reduced snowpack, and altered forest composition. What policies, if any, do you support in addressing how natural disasters are affecting industries and life in Vermont?

“To begin with…who says flood risk is increasing? Just because we have a sequence of floods in recent years does not necessarily mean that things have changed that much over the past 1000 years. A lot of propaganda has been spewed in the last 30-40 years about climate change. When that happens, follow the money…look for the motive. There are written historical records of many floods prior to the installation of stream flow gages beginning about 1900. There is a reason that so few covered bridges remain. So, our stream records are barely 100 years old. We should not be focusing on things we can not control…after all “the weather” is a classic. We should focus on problems we can solve. Our cities and villages have been build in the flood plains, often on the banks of the stream. Stream channels have been straightened, stream bank vegetation has been removed, gravel extracted, channels narrowed by bridges, road and railroad building. We need to incrementally continue to fix these problems as opportunities and money allow. We need to take actions that actually make a difference. Take the 3-acre rule for impervious surfaces, for example. The stated purpose for this rule was – to reduce phosphorus run-off. I argue: there is no source of phosphorus on roofs, parking lots or roadways…unless someone spreads something on those surfaces. This law is costing a great deal of money, achieving little or nothing positive while diverting money that could be spent on more effective practices. In my opinion, Hype got us that rule…sound science is disrespected. Our environmental “advocates” have provided us with a whole string of environmental hype and crisis over the 30-40 years with political solutions that were costly and did not work. Just look at the issue of PCBs in schools. Millions spent to find out that we can’t afford to tear down every school in the state and rebuild them…so, we stop testing. Science just might indicate that this issue should be treated as a Risk Management Issue with protocols and methods developed to effectively mitigate the risk…understanding, that monitoring is needed and that there is no such thing as zero risk.”

KEYWORDS: