To the editor: Global Warming bill extreme, harmful to Vermont
The Chester Telegraph | Sep 28, 2020 | Comments 4
Vermont produces .1 percent of the country’s emissions
If you don’t know about the Global Warming Solutions bill, it is the most extreme and harmful bill ever passed in Vermont. The goal of the bill is to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent while requiring 90 percent of Vermont’s energy to be from renewables.
To TRY to accomplish this we will need TENS OF THOUSANDS more acres in solar panels and many of our mountains covered in wind turbines. Think about where tens of thousands of acres of non-recyclable solar panels will end up and the environmental impact of that. Then we will need to drastically reduce the use of gasoline, heating oil, propane and diesel fuel. How does that happen?
First recreational vehicles including snowmobiles, ATVs, and motor boats must be eliminated, either through taxation or regulations. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles must go; we already see the state working on this through heavily subsidizing EV purchases, of course at taxpayer expense. They have made no secret of their plan to greatly increase the cost of fuel through a carbon tax and this bill will allow for that. People struggling to pay their heating bills and fill their vehicle’s fuel tank will be financially devastated. Our economy, our wallets, our landscape, and our freedom of choice will be negatively affected. Let’s not forget in rural Vermont the majority of our CO2 is used by our trees and other plants.
So the naked truth is that our progressives in the legislature are willing to disrupt all of our lives in a misguided attempt to fix a problem that is over-exaggerated. Our carbon footprint is very small, something to reduce through measured steps. But that isn’t good enough for our progressive legislators.
We need reasonable, practical and measured steps, not an overreaching bill that will create more hardship than it could ever prevent.
There is only way to stop this excessive and destructive legislation now and that is to vote out its supporters: ie: the Democrats and Progressives. Vote like Vermont’s future depends on it because it certainly does.
Keith Stern
Independent candidate for state Senate
Windsor County
Filed Under: Commentary • Letters to the Editor
“Mr. Stern bases his letter on a false premise that climate change is a “problem that is over exaggerated” despite overwhelming science to the contrary and then supports a position based on that false premise with misinformation.”
Actually I never stated that. I stated that Vermont’s .1% of the country’s emissions does not need such damaging action. I believe a realistic, measured approach is the way to proceed.
And yes solar panels have the potential to be recycled but they aren’t in the US so far and may never be according to research I’ve found.
I haven’t said I am a proponent of coal and need more information on natural gas. I have researched the damage to the environment when mining the materials for solar panels and batteries.
I agree withMr Stern. People are leaving in droves now. Carbon tax. Garbage tax. Young don’t stay. Mfg jobs leave. No employees. Full circle. Those that think solar and wind are the answer are drinking kool aid. We have made mega changes yo our air quality and yet the climate keeps changing. Always had always will. No be can not stop Mother Nature. The air here is quite good. Yes areas like Burlington with large populations are probably dirtier than here. But if people start heating with wood? Wood us not sustainable at that rate. Progressive think honey can stop the tides? Good luck.
Mr. Stern bases his letter on a false premise that climate change is a “problem that is over exaggerated” despite overwhelming science to the contrary and then supports a position based on that false premise with misinformation.
For example, he laments the potential for “tens of thousands of non-recyclable solar panels” when in fact even with currently available technology, nearly 90% of solar panel components (which are primarily glass and aluminum) are indeed recyclable.
With the adoption of initiatives such as the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, most if not all of the remaining components could be recovered and reused. Given that solar panels produce zero emissions over their 25- to 35-year life cycle, they serve to exponentially reduce the environmental footprint of energy production.
Mr. Stern’s allusion to the scenic impacts of alternative energy conveniently ignores the horrific impacts on the landscape that are overwhelmingly obvious in the fracking fields and coal mines in Pennsylvania and in oil country of our Southwest.
As is often the case, those who support the continued use of fossil fuels do so because their actual extraction happens out of sight, and not in their back yard. Addressing climate change will be expensive but not doing so will ultimately destroy our economy and the planet or kids and grandkids hope to inherit.
Keith, Good piece.
I believe it was Bill Mckibben who said that Vermont will require a string of wind turbines 200 miles long on her ridgelines in order to properly get the level of penetration required on that front.
A fellow running for the legislature around that time said that “all sources” of energy were required to power our state. That’s not how I hope you would feel if you made it to the legislature. There are some winners. Hydro is a dispatchable, 24/7 source of reliable, stable, incredibly powerful and downright cheap source of power. Solar and wind are none of these things.
Please keep the above in mind and remember that the Global Warming Solutions folks were pushing for solar and wind over reliable, heavy lifting sources that do real work from the very beginning.
Justin Turco
West Rutland