Community Members

At a minimum, a renewable energy source that does not pollute should be allowed to flourish in the face of global warming and the extremely polluting properties of burning coal and other fossil fuels. Imagine how clean our environment would be if as much concern was directed towards fossil fuel production as is now hurled against wind power. The litany of arguments (most of them local irritants) against wind turbines pale against the biological disaster that will be ours if we continue to get most of our energy from burning fossil fuels. Preserving our fundamental right to clean air, our right not to endure preventable environmental disasters like the one now unfolding in eastern Tennessee, and our right to a sustainable environment should be the guide by which decide on our energy sources. Global is the proper perspective.

What is becoming clear with this article and several others, Rochester City Newspaper is now the most important environmental newspaper in our area. Every other media in our area has dropped the ball on the most important issue of the day�"the state of our environment. The other media in our area�"newspapers, TV, radio, etc.�"when they publish articles on our environment at all are mostly pollution outbreaks, reprints from other media, or agenda-ridden stories that foster the illusion that we are ‘going green’ rapidly.

Granted there is a shift in public, governmental, and business attitudes towards living a more environmentally sustainable life, but an honest, investigatory, and comprehensive appraisal of our complete environmental profile is missing. Articles like this on the Genesee River, which is polluted and has not been visited by the media for years, is missing as Dr. Makarewicz notes an “understanding of the river's specific long-term trends.” If we were really serious about our environment, articles like this would occur daily.

Just one little concern: How can one talk about ‘industrial pollution’ of the Genesee River and not mention Kodak?

It may seem as though Canadian Geese are everywhere, but humans really are everywhere. Canadian Geese, like crows, starlings, raccoons, pigeons, and squirrels are one of the relatively few creatures that thrive around humans.

Most of the world’s plants and animals don’t do so well. Most, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, perish in the wake of human development and population growth. So much so that many scientists believe we are witnessing the Sixth Great Extinction event, comparable to that 65 million years ago, which saw the demise of the dinosaurs. Except this extinction event is different; it is human caused.

My point: When you see flocks of Canadian Geese and some of the other species that have managed to eek out a living amongst our rapacious species, you might think fondly of these lucky fellow creatures�"instead of eyeing them as ‘pests’, that is, through the myopic lens of human hegemony.

It is sad about the cuts jobs at the Democrat and Chronicle. Job cuts mean less reporting, Less reporting means less coverage on environmental issues in our area. News is when an environmental catastrophe -- like contamination from a brownfield into a community -- happens. Reporting is anticipating and helping the public to connect the dots so environmental issues don't become catastrophes.

One of the provisions of the COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 I thought was for the media to act in accordance with the public interest. But how much have Gannet, and the rest of our mainstream media, acted in the public interest when the largest newspaper in our area barley mentions serious environmental issues in our area? Sure, there's "greeney" articles -- delusional or cherry-picked articles that allow us the illusion that we are seriously doing something confronting issues of sustainability.

As the effects of Global Warming, pollution and cuts in environmental managing, become greater, our media provides us with less coverage. We get more entertainment, which we crave, and less critical information about the actual state of our environment, which we need. Then the various media fail because they have become irrelevant, because you can get entertainment at the moves.

“It” (our environment) ought to be on people’s mind, in the way our economy should have been on people’s mind. There are so many reasons why people and the media don’t pay much attention to our environment�"it’s boring, it’s got so politically fuzzy we’ve forgotten it’s science, it’s not TV, whatever�"but a failed environment will make a failed economy look like a Bush-Is-Finally-Leaving-The-Presidency party.

When our environment does fail because we haven’t taken the time to know the issues, anticipate the problems, overdeveloped, didn’t clean up the pollution, and just plain ignored it, there are going to be a lot of finger-pointing going on (just as there is about the present economic Tsunami) and they should be pointing at us.

Although there are many nuclear plants around the world, one Chernobyl-like incident will chill any Global Warming argument used in favor of using nuclear power. Man is prone to error, despite the efforts of the best and brightest who build and maintain our nuclear power plants. For, when you think about it, they have to be the best given the consequences of a nuclear error. Also, nuclear plants take a long time to build (meaning paperwork), a lot of insurance, and lots and lots of water to cool the plants�"not to mention the warmed waters discharges which affect fish life.

As for the “baseload” argument that coal and nuclear power are our only choices: If we redesigned our electrical grid so that computers could help channel energy loads when and where they are needed, solar and wind power could provide the necessary base loads. Critics are forever belying the reliability of wind and solar because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Well, if the grid is large enough, the wind does always blow�"somewhere. And already there are reliable solar batteries that can store energy when the sun doesn’t shine�"it’s called heating water, which retains heat very well and could heat our houses.

As for the arguments about wind and solar power having to be given tax breaks by the government, it’s hard to take them seriously when one thinks about how many billions the US has allowed the oil companies in tax relief.

Isn’t it time to do the right thing on energy and go renewable energy? You won’t need an iodine pill for your thyroid, if you live next to a wind turbine.