What a wonderful juxtaposition of articles in the Press Herald on Jan. 30.
On
Page A2, there is the article, "The beginning of the end?", an
authoritative and frightening summary of just how near we are to
irreversible climate change as a result of global warming.
Then
on Page A9, we read, "Don't industrialize Maine's mountains," in which
Steve Clark of the Appalachian Trail Club argues against the proposed
wind turbine project to be located near Redington.
The
area he wants to save from "industrialization" already contains
hundreds of miles of logging roads, ski and snowmobile trails, lodges,
motels, condominiums, chairlifts and snow-making equipment that uses
huge quantities of electricity. Industrialization happened a long time
ago.
More importantly, we can no longer afford to reflexively condemn projects such as the proposed wind farm.
Maine has no offshore oil wells, no refineries, no LNG terminals, no coal mines.
We let others deal with the inevitable pollution and dangers inherent in producing the electricity we depend on.
The Redington project will produce electricity sufficient for 40,000 homes and will do so without pollution.
It will make no contribution to global warming.
It is vastly superior to the alternatives: continued use of fossil fuels or nuclear power.
The
Redington project ought to be carefully supervised by the state to
ensure that it is carried out in a way that minimizes environmental
impact, but it should be supported by us all.
We
simply can't go on pretending that global warming is not real or that
our state should be somehow exempt from the responsibilities that come
with using electricity.
David Fischer
Wiscasset
How ironic
that on the same sheet of newsprint, there is an article on global
warming and also a column by Steve Clark of the Appalachian Trail Club
urging us to oppose windmills in the Maine mountains.
Mr. Clark tells why we should not have wind power but gives no solution to our energy needs.
Does he advocate for the status quo?
Or that global warming is a myth?
Does
he want nuclear power or opening up of offshore drilling for gas to
supply our gas-fired power plants - which supply 60 percent of our
electricity?
It is time for New England to start building wind farms, be it in the Boundary Mountains or Nantucket Sound.
Joe McNeill
Portland
In Rep. John Brautigam's
column, "Steps Maine can take to energy independence" (Jan. 24), one of
the steps clearly identifies a problem we have with energy usage and
costs here in Maine - the practice some electric utilities adopt to
encourage increased electric usage instead of conservation.
As
a customer of Central Maine Power, I have been subjected for years to a
constant barrage of bill inserts promoting consumption, e.g., the
wintertime use of electric space heaters.
Occasionally
CMP mentions that electric heaters can reduce oil consumption for those
who heat with oil, but of course it omits saying that its primary
motivation is to increase revenue and profits.
The
company also forgets to tell us that ultimately, increased usage leads
to increased power delivery system investment costs, which I, as a
customer, will be paying for.
As Rep. Brautigam notes, we need to change the motivation of such utilities.
The focus should be first on serving customers, not stockholders.
This
is one of the many reasons those of us in Kennebunk who are unfairly
saddled with CMP service want to receive power delivery service from
our own customer-oriented Kennebunk Light & Power District (KLPD).
KLPD's bill inserts promote energy conservation, not increased consumption.
Robert C. Ender
Kennebunk
Jon Spinner blames high oil prices on pandering to environmental groups (Voice of the People, Jan. 19).
He promotes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Environmental
groups continue to promote the development and use of solar and wind
power, which are nonpolluting methods of energy production, as well as
other renewable energy sources.
By
2025, the entire country of Iceland will be using hydrogen fuel, which
is made from water and currently costs the same amount of money as fuel
oil.
No greenhouse effects, no pollution, no oil spills, just water.
Perhaps
Mr. Bush should be looking elsewhere, beyond the pockets of his Texan
oil buddies, and beyond the Middle East for solutions to the energy
needs of this country.
We
have the technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but the
big business of oil/gas/coal/electricity production suppresses its
development.
This country needs a better plan for renewable energy sources, short-term and long-term.
I don't think anyone can argue with that, no matter what their political persuasion.
Diane Warming
Portland
