Dear Editor,
Clearly, a solar power generation project of this scope [referring to the one proposed in Josephine Basin] is a valuable and forward-thinking concept that fits in well as a part of the pre-eminent carbon-neutral global initiative essential to drastically reduce the production of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
Those who pose numerous specious arguments against the installation of a solar power generation venue are ignoring the looming catastrophic issues of climate change.
NCAR and NOAA scientists and climatologists clearly point to devastating storms, flash flooding, enormous wildfires and other natural hazards which have already resulted in tragic loss of life, property destruction and astronomical costs to replace or mitigate structural losses.
Moreover, tax and insurance funds, along with taxpayer-supported FEMA disaster-response and relief funds are required to replace and rebuild such venues on a gargantuan scale. Many insurance companies have completely withdrawn from providing coverage for disaster-prone states devastated by hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires and have concurrently increased insurance premium rates geometrically.
Consequently, all holders of mandatory insurance must share the cost-burden of compensating for such enormous losses. Guess that is the bulk of most U.S. citizens for starters. The Marshall Wildfire alone reached well over $1 billion in losses and is still being sorted out and slowly compensated.
It should be noted that WREA and Tri-State generation already have benefitted from larger solar installations in the Piceance Creek area that feed additional generation resources into the power grid.
So, let’s keep the “big picture” or gestalt viewpoint in mind and stop quibbling about irrelevant and inconsequential aesthetics of clearly safe and productive solar photovoltaic generation panel installations. Along with wind and other non-carbon combustion technologies, there is some hope for mitigating this crisis.
The owner of private property has a right to use that property in any way they choose, particularly when it is essential to make a living from what was previously productive agricultural land now negated by the drought.
Government has no right to prohibit such well-documented ecological and environmentally safe and productive technology, despite the poorly considered and specious objections to “aesthetic” considerations as posed by adjacent property owners, et al.
Moreover, let’s consider the value to our society and the planet’s health of the overall “forest” and stop worrying about individual “trees” in this global big-picture high-risk conversation.
Just sayin’.
Robert Amick
Meeker
NOTE: This letter has been edited for length.
Thoughts expressed on opinion pages are exclusively those of the writer and do not reflect those of the Herald Times. letters to the editor are printed in alphabetical order by last name. Submit signed letters on matters of local interest to [email protected], mail to PO Box 720, Meeker, CO 81641 or drop off at 304 4th St., Meeker. DUE TO SPACE CONSTRAINTS, we request SUBMISSIONS OF 500 words or less.
WE DO not accept letters that are duplicated, reprinted, copied, or otherwise reproduced. We RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT SUBMISSIONS FOR ANY REASON.
