Re: Alec Blossom’s letter of Jan. 17:
Mr. Blossom offers only palliatives and ideology as solutions to climate change. Neither works.
Consider these facts.
Vermont’s carbon emissions come from four sources: cars/trucks, home/structural heating, agriculture and commercial/industrial processes, all of which use fossil fuels. These four sources provide 93 percent of Vermont’s carbon emissions. Only 4 percent comes from electrical generation, including that which we import.
Conclusion: Reduce carbon emissions at their major sources. Let’s get busy weatherizing our houses and reorganizing our transportation systems.
Building more wind energy will actually increase carbon deposition, especially if the generator is selling the renewable energy credits, which most do.
The moratorium bill proposed by Sens. Benning and Hartwell is a constructive, conservative approach to creating an effective climate action strategy and entirely within the bounds of their oath of office.
There’s nothing wrong with taking a break when others are urging you to “jump.”
Those of us in the “small and vocal minority” who support renewable energy development also support a moratorium because the rush to “do something, anything,” even if it’s wrong, has taken over the planning and development process of renewables.
Taking a timeout from the breakneck speed we have been traveling with ridgeline wind projects is a smart thing to do.
Mr. Blossom has described no effective process for reducing carbon emissions. Tearing up mountains as an emissions reduction strategy only makes things worse.
The first rule of climate change is to protect existing intact ecosystems. A healthy landscape is the best defense against advancing climate change.
Steve E. Wright
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding