A point environmentalists should address
Letter to Portland Press Herald - I’m a long-term subscriber who has lived on the Maine coast for 50 years. Mention of climate change in the Press Herald is usually preceded by the words “may,” “could” or “might.” Every one of those mentions is negative about the future effect of climate change in the world and Maine. However, the law of nature is that changes cause 50/50 results.
I can’t understand why I have virtually never read an article in your paper expressing a positive benefit of climate change on Maine. The examples are countless. This year, we had warm weather and little snow, which was blamed on climate change along with hundreds of negative items. Yet the fact that Mainers saved millions on heating bills and drastically reduced Maine’s carbon emissions and pollutions was never once mentioned as a positive in Maine this year. At the same time, municipalities saved millions on reduced salt use and the pollution it causes.
What’s the problem? Roughly 14,000 years ago, Maine was covered by glaciers perhaps a mile deep and the oceans were 400 feet lower.
It’s gotten to the point that I’ve begun skipping any article with the word climate change. Reading more funnies, sports, business sections and little on the editorial page now. - George Bentley, Kennebunkport
The savings in the winter are overwhelmed by the cooling costs of summer. Though solar electric is what currently makes it possible without overloading the grid.
ReplyDeleteThe real answer is that let us do a real cost benefit analysis, with issues of fairness included. We shall find the overall economic cost benefit comes down very strongly on the side going green. the estimate is that a $6 trillion investment in green energy/efficiency/reduced emissions will provide $36 trillion in benefits to the economy.. some of it from innovations and some of it from prevented disasters if we focus on eliminating emissions and community resilience simultaneously