To the editor:
I recently received a rebuttal letter from a gentleman that didn't agree with most of my letter on the need for renewable energy and felt the need to respond to everything Mr. Deibert said were MY mistruths. Personally I would chalk this letter up as another Republican refusing to do the homework to get HIS facts straight. It's like watching Fox News all day long and believing you are receiving truthful reporting.
The figure I stated about the domesticated and feral cats killing 3.7 billion birds annually is from a study that was done by Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Washington, D.C., who led the team that performed the analysis. Just from cats, in the United States alone, 500 million birds are killed annually. These FACTS can also be found on the American Bird Conservancy website if you care to do some research. Please forgive me if I tend to trust a gentleman that has worked his whole life on the study of birds instead of a mechanical engineer from Reedsville.
You said "is it possible 3.8 billion domestic and feral cats exist worldwide?" The answer to that is no. I have done the research and there are an estimated 600 million domestic and feral cats worldwide as of 2010. That puts the kill figures up a little bit on the cat. Let's take away the cats that live their lives solely indoors which are about 100 million and we get 500 million. That means each cat averages about 7 or 8 a year. I personally think that number is a little low for a cat that lives all year outside. So you can see how turbines would kill much less birds than cats. The whole argument is stupid when you consider how bad pollution itself affects our wildlife. If we do nothing to figure out new clean energy solutions then our wildlife will take the first hit and in many areas they already have. That is another fact.
To the response from Mr. Deibert on the carbon being pumped into our atmosphere: He says that he can remember Greenland being told to stop burning coal and to put up wind towers (turbines). First, I don't know where he saw that or even got that information from. The fact is Greenland's government and many other governments see a true need for renewable clean energy. I also don't know how Mr. Deibert can say there is no correlation between greenhouse gas and the increase in global warming. I said in my (letter) that there is a cycling of the warming of our earth, that's true, but it's how fast that increase is happening which is of great concern.
The facts are these negative effects are happening all over. From the melting of arctic ice, to the death of the ocean reefs, our carbon emissions play a huge role in the damage that is being caused to our ecosystems. Carbon dioxide is constantly being exchanged among the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface as it is both produced and absorbed by many microorganisms, plants, and animals. However, emissions and removal of CO2 by these natural processes tend to balance.
Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. I am an adult student at Penn State currently and have studied this matter extensively and have gained a lot of knowledge about the effects of our continued pollution and the need for alternative energy sources. I have done plenty of unbiased research but it sounds like you could use a refresher course on chemical reactions within our environment and the effects they are having.
I understand that the tip or needle of the Empire State Building does not spin at 100 miles an hour and that wind turbines do, but being a mechanical engineer I'm sure you can understand why this needs to happen when trying to gather power from wind. But you still have not proven to me that these turbines are more dangerous than many other things for our bird populations or us as a population. You seem to be dodging the real problems like so many before you have and so many after you will continue to do so.
It almost sounds like Mr. Deibert believes that global warming is a myth. If that is the case, I would like to hear more about what you believe is responsible for the changes our environment is undergoing at this time, and not just the warming aspect of it but also the acidification of our oceans and the effects on human health and many other things that have been proven over and over to come from our increased pollution.
The United States had a chance to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 and did so but then refused to ratify it. The Kyoto Protocol is an international environmental treaty drafted to limit the output of emissions from developed countries around the world. The world understands that our carbon emissions are having negative impacts on much of the world, but that fact continues to elude Mr. Deibert and many others.
The fact is, Mr. Deibert, if it were not for big oil and gas lobbyists paying millions of dollars to politicians to pass bills to benefit their businesses there would already be a comprehensive strategy in place to limit carbon and would likely be led by new and clean energy sources, including wind and solar. To stop them from coming into the area would be non-beneficial to this area and keep us stuck in the stone age as far as energy independence goes.
Mr. Deibert, I have no intentions of going to the Jacks Mountain meeting. I will say however that I enjoy this back and forth discussion to bring attention to the need for renewable clean energy and respect that there is a need for discussion with people, like yourself, that don't understand the facts surrounding global warming.
I honestly do care about the future of my children and future grandchildren. I don't just say that to say it. I believe that we are leaving our children our problems to fix. I agree that some aspects need further studying when it comes to our energy production in the future, but we know what we are doing in this country now is continuing down the same path that has caused all this harm to our environment. Until we come up with some better ideas, I think wind and solar generation of energy is where our focus should be.
I don't know the point of the 1928 penny analogy, but I'm guessing it was an attempt to diminish me intellectually because I don't believe wind generation is a hoax. It's as real as you and I. It's called the future. Almost all scientists, from all over the world, agree there is a need for clean energy now. I would like to hear why you think that wind generation is a hoax though. I might get a kick out of that.
As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I didn't hear anything from any Republicans that had a better idea to cover the millions without insurance and to stop the people with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage by greedy insurance companies. Let me guess, you think that our insurance industry was fine as it was, right? Well, I know people with cancer that would say otherwise. Once again, if you don't have new ideas to get us out of messes we are in as a country then don't complain to the people that are trying to change things to make a difference. And please read up on the points that you make because it is NOT hard to find the facts, but please don't continue to watch Fox News because you will find no facts there.
I respect your stance on this subject and agree we have to be careful of the potential human and wildlife harm that could come from these turbines, but I think you need to understand that we need to change things in our world and the changes need to come soon - but those changes should be based on facts and science, not guesses.
And Mr. Deibert, I'm really shocked to hear you won't respond to my letter. I wish for you to reconsider and let me know which plans you support to move us forward in this nation instead of letting us fall a century behind. I will continue to support the Jacks Mountain wind turbine installations until someone can give me a logical solution to our clean energy needs.
Jason S. Lynn Sr.