Stuart Richards’ recent op-ed column is important (“Antisemitism is out of control, here and around the world,” July 25). He describes deplorable discrimination against Jews, both historical and current, cites FBI statistics showing 60% of U.S. hate crimes in 2019 were against Jews (who make up 2% of the population), and notes the ignorance of millennials about the Holocaust and the fact that only 18 states require teaching about the Holocaust. He underscores the role that diversity and inclusion efforts can play in eliminating antisemitism in our country.
The choice of topics in a school’s history curriculum involves the selection of facts and the narrative in which to embed them. We need to acknowledge that, in our multicultural society, there is no history that satisfies all tastes and needs. It requires us to be aware of the ideological basis for our selection and the criteria we use. We need to be mindful of the question: What do we not want to know about the past?
Teaching U.S. history in public schools has always been political, and anxieties spawned by wars and domestic disturbances heighten concerns about curricula being “anti-American.” There is a fear that introducing painful parts of our history would undercut student loyalty to our country. This has led 26 states to pass or consider passing “divisive concepts” laws in efforts to control the teaching of topics like race, sex and religion. One veteran history teacher acknowledges that the “classroom has become a minefield of political dos and don’ts.”
Historian Gary Nash thinks we should look at history’s warts and all. Showing only a cleansed view of our history would be comparable to the politically motivated censorship of history in the USSR.
In my view, the goal of history class should be to teach young people to think critically, to reach their own conclusions about important issues, and to value truth, beauty and the idea of justice. Providing students a balanced view of the good and evil in our own nation and in the world will prepare them for the struggle of our time.
BOB SCOBIE
West Lebanon
Renewable natural gas probably has a legitimate, minor role in meeting some of Vermont’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. However, that role won’t be nearly as significant as is suggested by Vermont Gas Systems in the recent VtDigger story published in the Valley News (“Northeast’s biggest renewable natural gas digester fires up in Vermont,” July 25).
The potential for RNG generation at farms, landfills and wastewater treatment facilities within Vermont can meet no more than a tiny fraction of the thermal load for buildings in the state. As the story reports, 55% of the output from the farm in Salisbury will meet only one-third of the thermal needs of just Middlebury College.
There is a policy proposal circulating in the Vermont Climate Council for renewable natural gas to be one of the “pathways” to meeting the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction mandate. Obviously, Vermont Gas loves the proposal and will undoubtedly see it as an opportunity to expand its pipeline infrastructure. But let’s look at what depending on this so-called “renewable” energy will mean in practice.
Since in-state generation will fall far short of heating requirements in Vermont, this strategy will depend primarily on the purchase of out-of-state renewable energy credits, which are unbundled from the gas itself. Last year the Public Utility Commission approved a long-term contract for Vermont Gas to purchase a “supply” of natural gas from a waste treatment facility in Dubuque, Iowa. Obviously, there is no pipeline connecting Iowa to Vermont, so Vermont Gas customers will not be burning renewable natural gas produced in Dubuque.
Aside from the spritz of methane from the Salisbury farm, Vermont Gas customers will actually burn fracked gas from Canada. However, under current Vermont law, Vermont Gas can claim some of its fossil fuel product as renewable energy.
That’s “greenwashing,” and that’s what Vermonters must insist not be allowed into the Climate Action Plan due to be issued by the climate council this coming December.
STUART BLOOD
Thetford Center
As I drive through rural Hanover, I veer from surprise and delight at the number of solar installations tucked away in the woods to a recognition that the vast majority of rural homes have not yet invested in this life-saving technology. It’s similar to the whiplash I experience as our weather jolts from drought to flooding, from temperatures calling for a furnace in June to heat domes in July.
The threat of climate change has loomed large in my consciousness for more than a decade, but I’m still awed at how quickly its dire circumstances and effects have come upon us.
I urge those who have a suitable site and the financial resources to install solar as soon as possible. In recent years the cost of solar panels has dropped dramatically and their productivity continues to increase. Panels installed in 2021 can be expected to produce clean energy for 25 years or more. Local banks will finance purchase of solar and the monthly payment may be equal or less than one’s current electric bill. A 26% federal tax credit exists through this year and next. Every solar panel added to the local grid will decrease our dependence on the brown energy that Liberty Utilities and Eversource Energy sell.
We need all the clean energy we can get. We simply must eliminate the burning and distribution of fossil fuels ASAP.
Thank you to everyone who has invested in solar (batteries, anyone?) Consider this a plea to the many others out there to join us.
MARJORIE ROGALSKI
Hanover
The writer is co-chair of the Sustainable Hanover Committee. The views expressed are her own.