Knee-jerk 'Green BREC' editorial overlooks realities
I am writing concerning the recent Pioneer editorial: "Green BREC only benefit 'feel-good.'" As is often the case with an uneducated knee-jerk response such as the one in the aforementioned editorial, the benefits are purposely overlooked to suit the agenda of the writer, who in this case is someone who has limited if any understanding of the project and what it is intended to accomplish.
Let's begin with actual cost. Currently electricity costs $0.07 per kwh. But that is not the full cost. It does not factor in the damage from mercury, sulfur, nitrous oxides, carbon emissions, land degradation from mining, transportation of the coal, smog, and human health risks. Coal is also a finite resource. Additionally, does anyone believe that the cost of electricity will remain the same over the next five, 10, or 20 years? Hardly!
If there is such concern about the upfront cost, then I wonder why the City Council chose to spend an additional $200,000 for a larger center score display for the BREC, which by the way will consume more energy.
The primary objectives of this project are to reduce the city's dependence upon fossil fuels at the South Shore Development and educate the public on the advantages of renewable energy. Would it not be wise for the city to actually lead by example when it comes to thinking about the future? Or is commitments to being environmentally responsible only so much lip service as we see from most politicians?
Very few grants support renewable energy projects for local governments.
Letting this opportunity pass us by would be an exceptionally bad and remarkably shortsighted idea. Sometimes it pays to do the right thing, and in more ways than just financially.