To the editor:
A few points about Anthony Marolda’s deeply flawed April 5 column (“How real is the Green New Deal?”): It’s a shame that instead of attacking the actual text of the resolution, he chooses to attack a flawed draft comment mistakenly posted on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website and since removed. (It can easily be found on the internet, and despite a few mistakes, is highly informative). The actual text of the Green New Deal resolution is a quick read, and there is a lot of sense expressed in this admittedly ambitious plan.
Mr. Marolda goes on to use a wild conjecture on the costs associated with the plan generated by a conservative think tank that among other things compresses the costs into a 10-year time frame that isn’t called for in the resolution, and fails to account for any of the economic benefits, especially long-term benefits that will be realized when the plan is put into effect.
Then he uses the theoretical limits of solar and wind energy capture (34 percent and 60 percent respectively) as an argument that we cannot possibly achieve the replacement of fossil fuels with those technologies. I would point out that the present peak efficiency of internal combustion engines is estimated at 40 percent, but it hasn’t stopped us from manufacturing billions of internal combustion vehicles and living with the resulting pollution.
Mr. Marolda goes on to disparage the efficiency and limitations of energy storage technology, an area that is seeing massive gains on a multitude of fronts, including new battery technology, pumped hydroelectric storage and use of low-demand times to freeze water that is used as air conditioning during peak demand.
The costs projected by some concerning the Green New Deal should be considered in light of the benefits it promises in the health and welfare of our citizens and that of our brothers and sisters worldwide. Most importantly, those costs should be considered in comparison to the untenable and ever-growing cost of continued inaction in the face of an ecological disaster.