The Montpelier Bridge

January 2006
The Green Valley: How Real a Vision?
by
Daniel Hecht

A good portion of Gov. Douglas’s State of the State address was framed in the context of developing a “Green Valley” in Vermont. The term has cropped up in recent editorials by UVM President Fogel and is being heard with increasing frequency at the Statehouse.

But just what is the vision? And is it a realistic possibility for Vermont?

The governor described Vermont’s Green Valley as a “Silicon Valley” of environmental industries. For those familiar with the original, Vermont’s becoming another Silicon Valley is not an attractive idea (smog, traffic), but that was not the governor’s intent. Rather, he was suggesting that a concentration of green industries can become a major economic engine for the state, one in harmony with Vermont’s traditions and widespread environmental ethic. Properly positioned, Vermont can become a leader in this sector, earning a world-wide reputation for quality and innovation.

The idea and the phrase were first coined by sustainability guru Paul Hawkins in 1997, and were best articulated by Vermont Environmental Consortium’s founding president, Peter Murray, in 2002; since then, the Green Valley’s most prominent public champion has been Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie.

But is it a viable vision? Can Vermont’s “green” economy expand to provide the more numerous and better-paying jobs people need? The answer, I believe, is yes – with several important provisos.

The first is that, as the governor said, the vision should not be turned into a partisan issue. The Democratic response to the governor’s address was surprisingly lacking in comment on his many Green Valley references, probably out of confusion over party “ownership” of the concept. But if this ambitious vision is to be realized, it needs support from leaders of all three of Vermont’s major parties.

Second, we need to think of this enterprise sector’s potentials in a different way. High-tech jobs in advanced R&D and manufacturing are desirable; but the truth is,Vermont communities are often resistant to the imposition of too much “hard” industry on rural lifestyles, traditions, and landscapes.

Fortunately, there are many more forms of “green” activity, and a more inclusive definition of green enterprise allows for a different model of economic growth and a more realistic – and for many, more attractive -- vision. Plans to grow the sector should certainly include traditional activity segments. But we should also promote growth in environment-related education; green building design and construction; green consumer products; sustainable agricultural and forestry practices, products, and technologies; non-profit organizations working to build sustainable communities; community development consulting; primary scientific research; and administrative, monitoring, and compliance services.

This redefined, diversified green sector can indeed grow, and Vermont should plan to develop leadership in these areas.

Third, to gain the international reputation that gives Vermont’s products and services a competitive marketing advantage, we’ll have to build not just an industry sector but a culture and regulatory climate that promotes sound stewardship.

We can’t just greenwash the state’s image; we need to walk the walk. Vermont has to clean up its soil and water, redevelop its brownfields sites, produce renewable energy from locally-derived sources, and preserve its forests, waters, and habitats.

This means we have to work through tough questions: How do we integrate new environmentally-friendly technologies into our communities? How do we reconcile, say, strict land-use restrictions with our desire for economic growth? How do we change our consumer culture, farming practices, and transportation habits so that we conserve energy, make best use of resources, and preserve the health of the natural environment?

This systemic change is where innovation is most needed. Fortunately, Vermont is small and cohesive enough to serve as a “laboratory” where experiments in technology applications, sustainable practices, and policy can be made. To build the Green Valley, we need to prove by demonstration that our innovations work and are applicable to other places. Only then will we develop the prestige “brand” – and thus create the markets – that Vermont products and services deserve.

Finally, we need to change the way we assign value to resources and activities.

We need new ways to measure the value of our natural resource “savings account.” What are standing trees worth, for example, and what’s the difference between their worth when harvested sustainably and milled locally versus their worth when hauled out in semis full of logs? We also need to factor in the role of forested hills, green fields, and clean lakes – preserved as such – in attracting tourism and recreation revenues.

And we would be wise to value local development of green enterprises because they confer basic assurances to our citizens; they supply foundation needs like warmth in winter, food, and water that’s safe to drink. Such basic assurances are increasingly hard to come by in much of the world, but they’re essential to long-term economic stability – and to our hopes of leading happy individual lives in healthy communities. If we recognize the importance of regional self-sufficiency, we’ll sleep better at night and demonstrate real leadership here in the Green Valley.

Daniel Hecht is a novelist and executive director of the Vermont Environmental Consortium, a statewide, non-profit alliance of 45 environmental businesses, educational institutions, public agencies, and other organizations. For more information about VEC, visit www.VECgreenvalley.org or write to vec@norwich.edu.

<< Back