Letters
Editor:
I have found it difficult to respond to Mr. Albert Stewart’s criticism of the April article "An Essential Fast Transition form Fossil Fuels to
Renewable Energy." In large part, the criticisms amount to non-specific innuendo and subjective opinion.
In reviewing the above article, the technical aspects described are consistent with numerous reports in published literature. The concerns expressed by Stewart appear to be related more to economic issues than technical or engineering constraints.
Admittedly, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar currently are cost-competitive only in states like California and Hawaii. In West Virginia, renewables are also the technology of choice in circumstances where power demands are low and transmission costs are high. On a large scale, the billions of tax dollars spent for research and development in nuclear and fossil fuels has provided an economic advantage that prevents renewables from capturing a large share of the market. Nevertheless, the economic divide is not as large as most expect.
New programs and utility deregulation are providing examples in numerous states where renewable sources of energy are economically viable. The US Department of Energy (DOE) last year announced its "Million Solar Roofs" initiative, hoping to meet that goal by 2010. Utilities in the Dakotas have found that demand for renewable electricity exceeds supply, even when the utility charges a premium price. Surveys indicate that up to 20 % of residential customers would pay 10 % higher rates for electricity from renewable sources. While this is certainly not a majority of the market, it is a sufficiently large market to make renewables economically viable. The DOE provides a renewables portfolio standard of 5.5 % of electricity sold to come from renewable sources by 2010, and states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut mandate even more aggressive renewables standards. An even larger aspect of the energy issue is the need to improve energy efficiency. The energy saving tips offered in the "Highlands Voice" are excellent examples of ways to reduce fossil fuel demand. As a general rule, energy efficiency is several times cheaper than new energy sources. For example, the single most important step is to increase auto fuel efficiency standards. The DOE admitted in 1988 that the technology is available to meet a 40-mile-per gallon standard, all that is lacking is the will to implement it and the demand from consumers to require it. These are not technological constraints, they are simply consumer choices.
From these examples, it is clear that renewable energy is a growing trend. Here in West Virginia, the issue is whether the state will continue the monopoly of coal or will diversify its electricity sources as a part of deregulation. Will we provide the needed education and incentives to get consumers to choose energy conservation, especially when it is in their own financial interest to do so? Or will we continue to subsidize so-called "clean coal" technology and promote wasteful energy consumption that benefits only utility stockholders at the expense of taxpayers and consumers?
For more information, check out the many Internet web pages. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is a good place to start (http://nrelinfo.nrel.gov/)
Sincerely,
James Kotcon August 16, 1998
James Kotcon, PH. D., is a professor at West Virginia University.
I felt that Mr. Stewart’s concerns as he expressed them in the August issue of the Highlands Voice needed a good response. Since Dr. Kotcon seemed to be the best qualified person I could think of off hand to do this, I asked him to write the above letter. Ed.
The following letter from Harry Wiant was printed in the Charleston Gazette. The reason for the inclusion of this letter is because of the response to it by Julian Martin which follows Mr. Wiant’s letter. Ed.
Editor:
As immediate past president of the 18,000-member Society of American Foresters, and I believe the first native West Virginian to hold that position, I can forgive John McFerrin for his lack of knowledge about forests and forestry. His vicious attack of forestry students, however, was completely out of line, and to use his apparently favorite word, silly.
Unfortunately, the extreme elements of the environmental community long ago left legitimate environmental concerns to wage a campaign based on fear, falsehoods and fantasy, which now threaten not just the health of our forests but all of our basic production industries, rural economies, property rights, freedoms and, indeed, the welfare of our nation.
They have successfully propagandized all too many citizens, especially those in urbanized environments, who do not appreciate the fact that the paper in which they read this letter came from trees, a wonderful renewable natural resource.
Harry V. Wiant Jr.
Morgantown July 29, 1998
Editor:
The foresters who respond to John McFerrin’s articles are missing the point. [Other persons from the forestry profession also attacked John’s letter in print, thus drawing the suspicion this was a concerted attack. If John’s letter wasn’t hitting the mark, then it never would have gotten this degree of response. Ed.] They try to divert attention from the real issue by attacking John and making him the issue. The issue John is raising is that the Blackwater Canyon should not be logged, and that it should be included in either the Monongahela National Forest or in the Blackwater Falls State Park.
The last reaction by Harry Wiant Jr. rolls out Cecil Underwood’s favorite label "environmental extremist" and wildly blames John and the rest of us "environmental extremists" for, "[threatening] the health of our forest and all of our basic production industries, rural economies, property rights, freedoms and indeed the welfare of our nation." That is a lot of territory without any proof being offered. It appears that the only things he didn’t call John and the rest of us extremists are "traitor" and "communist." And he has the gall to say we are using "fear, falsehoods and fantasy." Could it be that the foresters are the extremists? Could it be that people who want to log the beautiful Blackwater Canyon are the extremists? How did it become extreme to want to leave a canyon alone?
The foresters need to calm down and quit saying this argument is about logging. This argument is about the Blackwater Canyon. With the exception of the alarmist foresters most of the people in West Virginia believe the Blackwater Canyon is a special place and should be left in its natural state. I have been all over the state showing people from all walks of life the picture of the logging in the Blackwater Canyon and the usual reaction is something like "Oh no!" or "My God, they’re not!."
Julian Martin
Mr. Martin is the Volunteer Coordinator for the Blackwater Summer, the campaign to save Blackwater Canyon. He is a native of Lincoln County and a retired educator.
[I saw John’s original letter that has been attacked. It was clear to me that John referring to WVU forestry students was not to attack them, but rather to attack the narrow, "get out the cut" brainwashing they receive from the WVU Forestry Department. Ed.]
Editor:
Thanks for everything you do for us. How would you like to help generate fifty new letters to the governor on mountain top removal? Ask two friends who have not written the governor in the last six months to write him something similar to this!
Dear Governor Underwood:
Even though I live many miles from the southern West Virginia mountains which are now being ravaged by removal of their tops and head of the hollow fills, I have visited them and I have talked to the people whose rights as citizens are being forfeited by the industrial juggernaut perpetrated by this method of strip mining. Your statements on the subject as reported by the Associate Press this weekend are very disturbing because you appear to be saying you signed SB145 to benefit the very people who are being hurt by it.
Your signature on that bill codified mountain top removal as the method of choice for strip mining in much of West Virginia, and promises to be a hallmark of your administration for which history will judge you harshly.
I can only appeal to you to ask yourself at what sacrifice of the people and the land are you willing to be the symbol of the greatest man-made upheaval in our state’s existence. Shouldn’t you consider more carefully? Why don’t you call on the expertise of our universities and ask their landscape ecologists and economic analysts to advise you on the long-term consequences of mountain top removal? If you do, I think you will receive information which will give you pause and offer you an opportunity to be the forward thinking statesman I know you want to be.
Respectfully,
Wayne Spiggles, MD August 2, 1998
Editor:
I am writing to let you know about an upcoming conservation project which we are sponsoring near Franklin, West Virginia. We will be constructing gates to protect federally endangered Virginia big-eared bats at Sinnit and Thorn Mountain caves. We are also using this as an opportunity to provide a training session on how to construct cave gates.
If your paper is interested in covering this type of activity, we would be glad to invite one of your reporters to stop by to see the project and interview some of the participants. Since much of our time will be spent in the field where we will be hard to reach, we would have to coordinate a meeting time in advance.
We would also appreciate it very much if you would let your readers know that this training is available. [See Calendar. Ed.]
I enjoy reading the issues of your excellent publication which our Association receives by exchange. Thanks for your consideration.
Warmest Regards,
David G. Foster, July 27, 199
Mr Foster is the Executive Director of the American Cave Conservation Association
Editor:
The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce has been writing in opposition to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s new tighter air quality standards that would improve the air we breathe and reduce acid rain. One article reached my local paper, and I felt obliged to respond. Acid rain is the worst in the country in West Virginia, and our purest trout streams are being permanently lost because of it.
It was, however, for health reasons that the EPA proposed new air standards. After a just completed study of states east of the Mississippi indicated that thousands of lives in West Virginia alone would be saved annually, the EPA came out with their proposals for cleaner air. Industry, the Chamber, and even the Governor say our air is good enough. (Shame on him, he is supposed to look after our interests.)
Under the old standards all of West Virginia’s air quality sampling stations were generally in compliance. (WV has an inadequate number of stations.) We now know the old standards were not adequate to protect our health. Under the new standards these would not be in compliance, and a clean-up of power company emissions would be required. In these counties there are 56,000 children and 45,000 over 65 years of age, and 35,000 others at risk according to the American Lung Association.
The Chamber of Commerce "believes this is a direct attack on WV industry." "The states in the Northeast want to make life tough for WV - by forcing WV to take these costly and unneeded measures." "The states in the Northeast hope to gain an economic advantage over manufacturers and energy producers in WV." They claim at least 11,000 WV jobs would be lost. How likely is it that there is such an enormous Northeastern conspiracy?
Most WV citizens would think this is pretty silly, and that industry just does not want to make the improvements necessary to clean up our air - that their old traditional anti-environmental mind-set still prevails. Citizens have everywhere for 20 years now, in Harris Polls every 4 years, said they would pay higher power bills to clean up the air and protect the environment. The EPA reports for every dollar spent on clean-up there will be three dollars in health benefits, and forty-two dollars in total benefits. The clean-up costs are passed on to the consumer and if everyone in the East helps pay for it, our cost would be under five dollars per month.
The article I saw used phrases like, "Shut down all of the industry in WV", "Attack on WV jobs," and dire but irrelevant warning of job losses as back in the 1980's. The half truths, like "every county in WV has clean air," are shameful propaganda. The only concept of value presented is that the Northeast should, of course, clean up its own air.
West Virginians need cleaner air. Two weeks ago I was hiking in Dolly Sods, one day for five miles, over six miles another, and last weekend eight miles backpacking on Spruce Knob. I suspect by breathing hard this "clean" air I have reduced my lung capacity. The views from Spruce Knob were greatly reduced by a blue haze for the many visitors Saturday and Sunday, August 22 and 23. Our views are less than anywhere else in the U.S., half the national average. This is due mostly to sulfate in the air, but to ozone also and fine particulates. Surely the standards were exceeded on those days referred to. Those in suburbia, healthy folks, doing yard work, or ironically running for their health, likewise have been warned by "good science" that perhaps they are injuring themselves. The EPA required improvements were, however, made for the old, and young and those with lung problems. All are West Virginians and have the humane right to the cleaner air the EPA is striving for.
Ozone damage was noted on the leaves of Black Cherry on both Spruce Mountain and Dolly Sods. Black Cherry is an ozone sensitive tree and a very valuable one. Economists may have a dollar value for the 1/10 growth reduction tentatively attributed to ozone in this and some other species, but it is just one more indicator (along with trout loss, etc.) that forest ecosystem health is being stressed by this level of air pollution.
When the Chamber of Commerce, in ignorance, or with disregard for the truth, dares to say "help spread the good word about the high quality of West Virginia’s environment" - they are so clearly attempting to mislead the public. They claim to be proud of their stance against cleaner air; they should be ashamed. West Virginia air is in many respects the "dirtiest" in the nation, and we are victims as well as producers of it.
You can let your elected officials in Washington and Charleston know you support EPA in its regional effort to progressively improve our air, to protect our environment and ourselves. West Virginia must do its part.
D. C. Gasper August 24, 1998 Buckhannon 472 - 3704
[Don – Do you suppose our politicians are in denial about West Virginia air quality? Supposing prospective tourists got the real word on this – to protect their health would many decide to forgo a vacation in WV?
]Editor
I want to express to you my philosophy about running this office. I propose an operation that is open to the public and to environmental activists like yourself. I believe the more we jointly discuss issues, the easier it will be to head off potential confrontation. Because we are a permitting and regulatory agency, I understand that conflict is unavoidable in some instances. However, I do not believe differences of opinion need lead to harshness, denunciation or insincerity.
Our agency has been embroiled in litigation in the past and will face lawsuits in the future. That is the nature of a regulatory body. We all understand that legal action by you or your representatives should not lead you to the erroneous conclusion that my door is closed to you. Just the opposite. I want you r ideas and input and I suggest you contact me directly, or communicate your feelings to a member of my staff. I understand that litigation is often the only way to clarify issues under state and federal law. We encourage such clarification for the good of all of us. It is our duty to defend the state law, but that should not act as a barrier to our mutual respect and cooperation.
In support of the above, I would like your help and suggestions for forming a monthly meeting when you could come into my office and express concerns and explain issues to me directly. This is particularly critical now that the position of environmental advocate is vacant. I think a monthly meeting would help us both in a collegiate exchange of ideas. Open communications is the only way we will move forward together. Confrontation solves nothing.
I happened to think of this idea because more than one person in the environmental community has expressed concerns – not to me directly, but in the media and elsewhere – that we are considering abolishing the environmental advocate role. Nothing could be further from the truth. But it is symptomatic of the concerns, however wholly unjustified, some of you have for the motivations of this office. We had very high regard for Wendy Radcliff in her job as environmental advocate. She was critically important to the operation and functions here. All of us believe in that office and want to maintain it.
I hope you will support me in this idea of a monthly meeting and in keeping the lines of communication open. Suspicion and ignorance breed disharmony and discomfort. I want to encourage your dissent when you disagree with agency policy, but always want to let you know that it will not lessen my regard for you. We must have mutual respect. We must communicate. We must remain viable partners in developing and protecting the environment. Our highest calling in this agency and something I never fail to promote to all members of my staff, is that it is our duty to protect and defend the environment of this state.
Please communicate with me, or my communications chief, A. V. Gallagher, when a mutually satisfactory time can be had to discuss the time and forum for a monthly meeting. If that is not possible, I will set up a tentative meeting date and will inform you of it.
I look forward to continued cooperation and open communications.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Miano
Mr Miano is the director of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
_