Letter: Vote no on climate-related ballot questions 3 and 7 in Burlington

Editor’s note: This letter is by Tom Licata, a resident of Burlington.

I disagree with Siddhesh Mukerji’s recent call to vote ‘yes’ on ballot questions 3 and 7.

Vermont accounts for approximately 1/7 of 1% of the U.S.’s carbon footprint. If Vermont were to disappear, its impact on reducing CO2 emissions would be virtually meaningless. But should proposals 3 and 7 pass, much socioeconomic pain and loss of freedom would occur, as government would have the power to ration energy — both in what is produced and what is distributed into homes and businesses.

Burlington’s McNeil Generating Station’s primary source for electricity is wood. Wood has a ratio of combustible carbon atoms to hydrogen atoms of about 10:1, whereas natural gas has a ratio of 1 carbon to 4 hydrogen. Moving McNeil’s primary electrical source to natural gas from wood would reduce CO2 emissions. Yet proposals 3 and 7 would disallow this. This is counter-productive!

To meaningfully reduce Vermont’s CO2 emissions and simultaneously create a more vibrant economy, Vermont should (1) increase its purchases from Hydro-Quebec, and (2) build a fourth generation nuclear power plant (SMRs). These plants are proven to be safer than fossil, biomass and solar; they run 24/7 and can be manufactured more economically than previous generations.

Quoting from a Scientific American article: “The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency suggest in a report … that nuclear will have such a significant role to play in climate strategy that nuclear power generation capacity will have to double by 2050 in order for the world to meet the international 2-degree Celsius warming goal.”

Vote NO on questions 3 and 7!

Tom Licata
Burlington, Vermont

Image courtesy of Public domain

2 thoughts on “Letter: Vote no on climate-related ballot questions 3 and 7 in Burlington

  1. What are Burlington ballot questions 3 and 7?

    And then, we have today’s Texas disaster where green energy power totally failed in bad weather………What’s going to happen in bad weather prone Vermont when it becomes heavily dependent on wind and solar? Will Vermont go dark with no heat and freezing pipes?

    We have already been told that the Global Warming Solutions Act will do nothing to mitigate climate change, while the Texas experience demonstrates the wind and solar will not work in bad weather, the same has to be true for Vermont…..So what are going to get from the GWSA?

    Maybe the proponents of the GWSA in the legislature can tell us why things will be different in Vermont than they have been in Texas when weather gets bad…….Which is definitely going to happen here.

  2. I hope that people are paying attention to what’s happening in Texas during this winter storm, Monday
    15 February, 2021. Over the last few years, in energy rich Texas, alternative forms of power generation have been expanding to the point where about a quarter of the state’s energy, 23 percent, is being produced by wind and solar. Well today the wind mills froze up and the solar panels were covered with ice and snow, and the Texas power grid crashed! Tens of thousands of people are now without power to provide heat in below freezing weather, and there is fear that some people may freeze to death.
    And this is occurring today, in the United States that has finally achieved energy independence through the use of coal, oil and natural gas, but is now facing a disaster in Texas that should not have happened, because of the concerted efforts of liberal, progressive democrats and their moronic legislation to dismantle the coal, oil and natural gas industries. You don’t want this Burlington. Vote NO on questions 3 and 7.
    This may not be reported in the main street media because it does not fit their New Green Deal agenda, but it is happening right now, tonight, in Texas!
    Don’t mess with Texas…

Comments are closed.