We Can’t Have Our Climate Cake And Eat It Too
To the Editor:
Widespread outrage over the public benefits portion of electric bills erupted this August, with a petition to cancel the charge garnering over 60,000 signatures. Although about 77% of this charge funds Millstone (CT’s nuclear power plant, responsible for a third of the state’s electricity), much of the ire has been directed at EV rebates and renewable energy investments. Customers shouldn’t have to pay for Hartford’s clean energy goals!
Or, should we? According to Yale’s 2023 Climate Opinions Map, 75% of Connecticut residents believe global warming is happening. A staggering 82% support funding research into renewable energy sources, while 77% support tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels. 66% of Nutmeggers feel that Congress should do more to address global warming.
If we feel that climate change and renewable energy are important issues worth investing in, we need to put our money where our mouth is. We cannot blame the Congresspeople we elected because of their pro-environmental views for codifying those values into law, especially not when they reflect the preferences of most Connecticut residents. Our nation is on the brink of a green energy revolution, and no one wants Connecticut to miss out on good-paying jobs, less pollution, and a sustainable future.
I concede that many aspects of the way our energy bills are structured warrant rethinking — but supporting clean energy? We can’t have our climate cake and eat it too.
Christine O’Neill
Wolcott
One word-Nuclear. 1 thorium salt reactor could power Danbury for years. It uses spent fuel rods and, then that fuel is used in medical. It does not need a huge containment building. Small land footprint. Of course, it would take ten years from approval, because our enemies fund all the environmental groups. Spent fuel from TSR half-life-10-12 years. Concrete/hole/done.
What if you don’t WANT ‘green energy’ cake? Yet 33% of CT ratepayers (by the writer’s math) just have to smile and eat it. I’m not so sure that if whatever majority of CT that wants “to do something” had to pay the full bill for that “something” without subsidies pried from the unwilling that this cake would be so fashionable anymore. I agree, Christine – if you feel that this is something you should invest in please do so, but please stop using my money to chase your dream.
@voter: But isn’t that how our entire country works? A candidate receives a majority of votes, and then they set the policy. I don’t want to fund our bloated military, but the politicians who won their elections will bankroll the DOD regardless of my individual wishes. I’m not talking about anything radical here – these are the most fundamental building blocks of a republic.
blue, you’re not way out in left field, but I do not appreciate the underhanded way that the CT Dems have buried these subsidies in my electric bill. I do appreciate the efforts of CT GOP to change how these subsidies would be funded with tax dollars we’ve already paid to the state of CT, but don’t expect the Lamont and his gang to budge. I am glad the CT GOP managed to get our electric bills re-configured so that the public benefits charge was explicit- without that pressure many people wouldn’t even know this happened. I do believe the market system has a built-in form of democracy: if you really really want green energy then please vote for it with your dollars. My vote would be for the most efficient method of electricity, not the one that has the largest up-front cost with some vague promise of future payback.