.

Opinion: 'Green Power' is Right for Evanston

An Evanston resident explains in a letter to the editor why using climate-friendly sources of power would be a boon to local businesses and households.

The following is a letter to the editor from Evanston resident Jack Darin:

March's election results show that Evanston residents like the idea of gathering our strength to get a better deal on the power we buy for our homes and small businesses.

The voters are right — aggregating our electricity purchasing will save us all money on our power bill, and can help clean the air by using 100% green power. However, there are other bottom-line benefits to going to an all-green supply that we need to capture for taxpayers and Evanston businesses.

First, buying green power is a bargain for Evanston taxpayers. Evanston's Climate Action Plan, which has the support of the City Council and a broad spectrum of residents and community organizations, calls for real steps to cut Evanston's pollution. Buying 100% green power would satisfy the emissions reductions goals of the Climate Action Plan, and at a negligible expense. We are a community that strives for the best — how often do we hit those goals on time and under budget? Anyone who opposes buying green power for Evanston either doesn't support the Climate Action Plan, or is in favor of more expensive means of meeting those goals.

Second, buying green power is a major business development opportunity for our community. Because Evanston's green power supply would also cover our small businesses, we can give those enterprises a very powerful marketing tool along with a lower electric bill. Our small businesses could boast of being located in "Evanston - a 100% Green Power Community," or that their products are produced with 100% green power. These are very powerful marketing advantages we can give Evanston businesses if we green their electric supply.

There are many reasons to be for 100% green power in Evanston.  On the one hand, we need to do the right thing for our health today and for future generations.   On the other hand, we have a chance to protect taxpayers and help our small businesses grow.  Either way, 100% clean power is a winner for Evanston.

Evanston Patch welcomes letters to the editor. Submissions should include your name and contact information, for purposes of verification, and may be edited for clarity or profanity. Letters reflect the opinion of the author, not necessarily that of Evanston Patch or its staff.

Jeff April 27, 2012 at 02:00 PM
"Buying 100% green power would satisfy the emissions reductions goals of the Climate Action Plan, and at a negligible expense." Any idea what a negligible expense is? For months, I've been looking for real numbers but have not been able to find any trusted data. How much more as a % does the green energy cost?
Dana April 27, 2012 at 03:20 PM
Jeff: Here is the information I have from Oak Park based on actual rfps. Numbers may vary for other municipalities based on rfp criteria. Hope it helps. "The lowest available cost option had savings of 26.09 percent over current ComEd rates. Totally renewable energy (92-94 percent wind) saved 24.29 percent. The difference in cost savings was approximately $1 per bill.
Richard Schulte April 27, 2012 at 05:33 PM
"Green power" doesn't make any sense-in fact, the idea is kooky. We've seen the failure of "green industry" over the last few years-Solyndra is the most widely known example, but there are many others. Wind power? What happens when the wind doesn't blow? Sun power? How about cloudy days? Ethanol from corn? Dumbest idea on Earth. Converting one-third of our corn crop into fuel has raised food prices all over the world. That's what we need, higher food prices for the poor all around the world. Global warming? Complete nonsense. The temperatures are no longer rising. Back in the 1970's, we were talking about global cooling. So which is it? Warming or cooling? If you search on "global cooling", you will find articles in The New York Times on global cooling followed by global warming dating back to the 1850's. Based upon The NYT articles it can be concluded that Earth alternates between global warming and global cooling at approximately 30 year intervals. If global warming is a kooky idea, then it would seem that the rest of the "green" agenda is also suspect.
Richard Schulte April 27, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Newsweek-April 28, 1975: "To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."
Richard Schulte April 27, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Time Magazine-June 24, 1974: Another Ice Age?
Richard Schulte April 27, 2012 at 06:11 PM
"It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” " http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/periodic-claims-of-global/311314
Richard Schulte April 27, 2012 at 06:17 PM
"The Fiction of Climate Science", Gary Sutton, Forbes, December 4, 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
Richard Schulte April 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM
It's rather interesting that no one who supports the "green agenda" has stepped up to explain why the "experts" were talking about "global cooling" in the 1970's. (For those old enough to remember, the winter of 1979 comes immediately to mind.) And it's also interesting that no one has stepped up to explain the alternating stories on "global warming" and "global cooling" published in The New York Times since the 1850's. It's not difficult to research the history of the "global warming/global cooling" scares over the last 150 years. If you do the research, you can't help but begin the question the "global warming" hypothesis. The entire "green agenda" is discredited with the green's belief in "global warming". If not for global warming, North America would still be buried under glaciers.
Richard Schulte April 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Is climate change actually caused by the Sun, rather than by carbon dioxide? "The theory that climate change, both global warming and cooling, is related to magnetic disturbances on the sun and cloud-creating cosmic rays is supported by a large number of scientists who have published their findings in refereed journals (click here to watch a review). This theory has succeeded in explaining climate changes whether the scale is years or hundreds of millions of years. For example, it explains the colder climate from 2006-2010 as partly the result of reduced solar activity and the recent warmer climate as partly the result of solar activity rising throughout 2011." Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/does_global_warming_cause_extreme_weather.html#ixzz1tQpajm1D Since the Sun affects the climate on other planets in our solar system, it seems reasonable to assume that the Sun also affects the climate on Earth.
Richard Schulte April 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Evanston resident Jack Darin wrote an editorial about "climate-friendly" energy sources, but has failed to make the case for the need for "climate-friendly" energy sources. Information presented in comments indicates that "experts" have been alternately predicting either "global cooling" or "global warming" at roughly 30 year intervals for the last 150 years or so. Lately, information has been developed that the cooling or warming of the Earth is correlated to activity on the Sun. The fact that Mr. Darin has failed to offer any explanation as to why government scientists were predicting global cooling just 30 years ago cast doubts on Mr. Darin's assertion that there is a need for "climate-friendly" energy sources. Carbon-based fuels presently being used are not in short supply. In fact, in recent years, new sources of oil and gas have been found all over the United States, including North Dakota, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We have sufficient carbon-based fuels in North America and off the coast of North America to last for hundreds of years at our present rate of usage. If "climate change" is not caused by the use of carbon-based fuels, then there is no need for "climate-friendly" alternative energy sources. In the face of the failure of the "greens" to address the prediction of "global cooling" 30 years ago, there is no reason why anyone should believe their latest predictions.
Richard Schulte April 30, 2012 at 07:01 PM
Here's the real story on "green energy". It's just a slush fund. "Eighty percent of the Department of Energy (DOE)'s green loans, loan guarantees, and grants went to Obama backers. As Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise." Schweizer wrote, "... a large proportion of the winners [companies receiving loans, loan guarantees, and grants] were companies with Obama-campaign connections. At least 10 members of Obama's finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants." How much? Schweizer continues, "In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of September 15 [2011] went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers." " So what "green energy" is all about is funneling money to Democrats that make campaign donations. Sounds like "pay-to-play" to me. Again, not a word of explanation from Mr. Darin on why the experts were predicting "global cooling" just 30 years ago. Mr. Darin, you wrote an "editorial" touting "green energy", now you owe us an explanation about why "green energy" is necessary. The ball is in your court. . . we're waiting to hear from you. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_epic_green_fail.html#ixzz1tYFXBakH
Richard Schulte April 30, 2012 at 07:44 PM
Is green energy clean energy?: "Three months ago, CBS 5 caught Solyndra tossing millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes used to make solar panels. Now the bankrupt solar firm, once touted as a symbol of green technology, may be trying to abandon toxic waste. It’s a tedious process. Slowly but surely, the shattered remains of brand new solar panel tubes head to a recycling plant in Hayward. Meanwhile the next phase of the company’s liquidation is under way. It involves getting rid of all the heavy metals left inside the building that were used to make the panels." http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/29/solyndra-toxic/ Caught you!!!
Richard Schulte April 30, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Say it ain't so Joe: So with all that in mind, let's turn our attention to what has actually happened since Obama took office. •SunPower, after receiving $1.5 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs. •First Solar, after receiving $1.46 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs. •Solyndra, after receiving $535 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Ener1, after receiving $118.5 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Evergreen Solar, after receiving millions of dollars from the state of Massachusetts, filed for bankruptcy protection. •SpectraWatt, backed by Intel and Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Beacon Power, after receiving $43 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Abound Solar, after receiving $400 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Abound Solar, after receiving $400 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Amonix, after receiving $5.9 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •Babcock & Brown (an Australian company), after receiving $178 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. •A123 Systems, after receiving $279 million from DOE, shipped some bad batteries and is barely operating. It cut jobs. •Solar Trust for America, after receiving a $2.1-billion loan guarantee from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_epic_green_fail.html#ixzz1tYkZXMZh
Richard Schulte May 03, 2012 at 01:14 PM
An excellent discussion of global warming/climate change science can be found at the following link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/global_warming_melts_away.html The article points out that there is a strong correlation between temperature rise and the US national debt. (The correlation is even stronger than the correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature rise.) Hence, one can conclude that the cause of "global warming" is the increase in the US national debt.
Richard Schulte May 06, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Townhall columnist Marita Noon: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007 that “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Then, in 2010, they had to retract the estimate, admitting that it was based on “dubious scientific sources.” Time Magazine called the entire episode “a black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.” Now, there is a new study reported in Nature that points out that the contribution of melting ice “is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.” As the Himalayan story exposes, some of the science behind the manmade climate change hysteria is “dubious.” And some is the result of scientific misconduct, as was revealed in the Climategate scandal that exposed falsified records and silenced scientists." http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2012/05/06/panetta_beats_war_drums_on_climate_change/page/2 Ooops-not again.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something