|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It’s always interesting to hear what the fossil fuel industry has to say on issues of energy costs and environmental impacts, and Northeast Gas Association CEO José Costa does not disappoint. In his op-ed, he touts expanded gas infrastructure as both an economic and climate solution, and (from a single and very short-term perspective) he’s correct.
By analogy, let’s say you’re working hard on a project and you need an energy boost. While six cans of Red Bull and a pack of cigarettes may see you through the deadline, no one would argue they’re a good substitute for a regular sleep schedule and a healthy lifestyle.
Fossil fuel infrastructure is what made us vulnerable to winter price shocks and fluctuating supply chains in the first place. Increased pipeline capacity won’t solve our problems, but it will increase profit margins for energy companies while making us more dependent on their product, at a time when the need to transition away from fossil fuels is more urgent than ever.
Warren Senders is a resident of Medford.
Tue that. We need to transition to renewal energy that can be produced and distributed locally.
Where do you find these people with these ridiculous ideas
Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but I will always disagree with the thought that adding or increasing energy sources will not help our energy situation and lower costs. The far left leadership of this state have stripped our state of all it’s energy resources shutting down plant and plant while solely relying on green energy and the results have been seeing our utility bills spike hurting residents and businesses across the state.
Massachusetts needs a more balanced approach to energy. Our state’s energy needs are too great, and it will always take a combination of Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydro, Solar, Wind, and other new energy technologies to provide energy at affordable costs for all our residents that live in our cities and towns.
More than ever our state needs major change, not only with our energy needs, but also with our state leadership, we need to create a new direction and a better vision for our future.
I beg to differ with the writer of this opinion piece in many ways. His analogy of the Red Bull pickup is cute but unfortunately meaningless in my opinion. People have invested in homes and factories that are utilizing fossil fuels either directly or indirectly. They cannot and will not instantly abandon their means to heat, cool, and otherwise operate their homes and factories. That is clearly not economic and will not happen. Restricting pipelines bringing in natural gas to New England from the production areas ONLY creates shortages and drives prices higher, burdening New Englanders with utility costs much higher than most other areas of the country. This logic reminds me of those protesters who eventually killed proposed crude oil pipelines routed from Canada to the US, under the theory that the world environment would be spared the carbon from that oil. Actually, what has happened is that the Canadian oil is now piped to the coasts of Canada and shipped by ocean to other countries to use. The impact on the world climate change is a net zero. The impact on the US is higher prices and lower domestic refinery activity.
I agree totally with the comments above by Jeff Rogers. Conversion to green energy is a multi-year process, and a variety of energy sources must continue to be made available during the transition years.