from DAN BUTTERMANN

We Can Support Economic

Development Without Gas

To the Editor:

This letter is in response to Dick Downey’s excellent letter in your March 7-8 editions.  Mr. Downey may share a feeling that I do – that maybe my previous letter and assertions may incorrectly characterize his views, just as I think his words do not accurately summarize mine.  So, I hope this will clear up some of that and further anchor my main point – it is the right course of action for our country, our state and our local governments to seek ways to reduce gas usage and incorporate renewable energy, specifically wind and solar.

Mr. Downey, although not explicit, suggested that my point of view is synchronized with the Green New Deal.  I have not endorsed it, nor do I intend to.  I have run for public office in the past and intend to do so again, and my platform will be wholly based on what I think is the best path forward for all of us.

I think Mr. Downey and I can agree on our opposition to components of the Green New Deal.  However, these letters are for argument and debate, and for purpose of my argument with Mr. Downey, I feel strained in the need to further lay the case about climate change and the manmade effect on it.  Mr. Downey took issue with my use of the term “settled science,” so instead of using conclusions this time, I will put forward measurements.

The amount of gas burning and greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere is, and the temperature changes we are experiencing are measurable.  CO2 is being released into the atmosphere faster than any time in the last 66 million years and, every day, 110 million tons of manmade pollution is released into the atmosphere.

These are measurements.  The consequences are also measurable, and in my opinion linked to the production measurements – 17 of the 18 hottest years on record recorded since 2001; forest-fighting seasons that average three more months per year out West and the likelihood of so-called one in 500-year weather events and floods happening every few years. (This is not a comprehensive list).

Mr. Downey may not be ready to call a link or causation between the rate of CO2 release and the measured climate changes, but I am.  If it is a question of calling for absolute proof, Mr. Downey may not get it.  But I think the case is very convincing.

I do not contend Mr. Downey is wrong to be skeptical, because the question of proof is up to each person to decide.  My contention is that action cannot wait for absolute certainty because we may never get complete consensus on causation.

Mr. Downey may think I am sounding an alarm about the effects of climate change.  My response is YES! – we need to take concerted action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases going to the atmosphere, however, I am not claiming that we only have twelve years before “doom”, nor am I contending we are ready to “flip the switch” off gas.  The tipping point that Mr. Downey eludes to is a topic for another discussion.

There is exciting and optimistic news – we have the technology that can help us make changes to our systems that will preserve and enhance quality of life for us as well as for millions around the world.  This dilemma is not just about gas versus renewable.  There are many things we can do – go to www.drawdown.org for a thorough list of actions we can take to reverse the pace of global warming.

Mr. Downey favors the proposed decompressor station investment, and I do not.  However, I do agree with him that doing so would not impede the development of other energy production.  The question that needs to be answered is whether or not this is good use of taxpayer money.  I contend we can support business and job growth without adding to gas infrastructure.

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Downey on natural gas as a replacement for coal and as a bridge fuel. We are on that bridge.  Since 2001, New York has gone from nuclear and natural gas making up 55 percent of energy production to 70 percent in 2017, and, coal, which was at 16 percent in 2001, has dwindled to nearly nothing.  In that same period, the United States as gone from 51 percent coal and 17 percent natural gas to 30 percent coal and 32 percent natural gas.

This is progress but it is not a destination.  Although emissions have reduced to 1987 levels, and we are squeezing out coal, we are not there yet.  The goal posts are set – 100 percent renewable by 2050.  Let’s work to make it happen and get off the bridge.  We have the opportunity to secure a future for our children that is energy independent, secure and safe for them and the environment.  Imagine the amazing things the next generation will do if this problem is already solved.

DAN BUTTERMANN

Oneonta