An April 5 letter to the editor did four things (“Kent County’s new solar ordinance is a ‘raw deal’”). It listed several detracting features of solar farms when specific local, Kent County interests were considered. It listed some shortcomings of solar power in general. It explained parts of the economic picture involving mandates and billing-cost procedures. Finally, it ended up recommending, “Only the election of new leadership, in all branches of government, can change this predictable outcome.” The last sentence was, “Vote like your life depends on it because it does.” I find all four of these things to be flawed.
The writer did not acknowledge two major facts. First, solar and wind generation are now cheaper, simpler, safer and easier to use than any other source (and the engineers and spreadsheet “whips” have known this for the last three to five years). Second, the real “raw deal” is climate change. Sea level rise is expected to continue, some say increasing 5-10 feet by the year 2100, and perhaps 100-200 feet if all of Antarctica melts.
All this would make any Kent County ordinance irrelevant if we end up underwater. It is currently a controversial question, but many people have also recently begun to perceive: (1) bad trends in storm intensities and number and increasing storm-damage insurance claims; (2) rainfall excesses in some areas, leading to worse flooding, accelerated soil runoff and crop damage; (3) areas of historic and recent exceptionally worse droughts and crop failures; and (4) increased insect and disease problems. All four of these observations correlate with climate change.
I have paid great attention to the recent considerable worldwide progress in renewable-energy generation and storage, electric car sales and signing of contracts for the manufacture and delivery of electric aircraft. And at least one commercial-scale electric cargo ship (e.g., the Yara Birkeland) is near its launch date. More electric ships are on the drawing boards. It is gratifying that numerous big corporations have made “zero-carbon” pledges and are planning futures with little or no fossil energy. Some banks are requiring more “climate-risk” analysis for commercial loans. Some governments are making serious shifts in their planning, too.
But the other real “raw deal” is going to be the shock when you realize that permanent brain damage starts at brain temperatures of about 105 degrees Fahrenheit, and the extra air conditioning needed to keep you cool is going to cost more money, too.
Before you do that voting, at least get a broad idea of the reality and the long-term picture, instead of accepting some half-baked, narrow, short-term and biased viewpoint. Last year, we saw the first rain in recorded history fall on Greenland’s glacier ice and record-high — above-freezing — temperatures in Antarctica.
Arthur E. Sowers
Harbeson
