Sarah Crysl Akhtar is unsparing in her criticism of green energy (“No such thing as green energy,” Jan. 2). She catalogs a host of ills, some real, some imagined, and asks to be educated. OK, how about Scotland. It has both on- and off-shore wind farms. Yes, they have felled 13.9 million trees since 2000. But, as a spokesman for Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) noted, this is not even 1 percent of the land under their management and, in the same period, FLS has planted 272 million trees. The loss of trees must be considered against the gain in renewable energy. Between January and June of 2019, Scotland’s turbines generated 9.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity, enough to supply power to 4.47 million homes — not bad for a country that has around 2.6 million homes to its name. Unfortunately turbines do cause bird deaths. But some context: Turbines are not even among the top seven hazards to birds. The biggest threat, feral cats, kill 20 times more.
Yes, it is true that the materials that go into the new technologies — nickel, lithium, rare earth elements — come from some of the poorest areas and often cause major environmental damage. However, efforts are being made to change that.
For example, research at Dartmouth has focused on using iron-based battery technologies as an alternative to rare earths.
What Akhtar neglects to do is consider the alternative. The devastation in poor countries from unregulated petroleum exploitation, the consequences of oil spills, the devastation of West Virginia from coal mining, and, yes, the consequences to future generations from the carbon emissions caused by “affordably warming” our homes. Let’s do an honest accounting of both the benefits and costs of satisfying our energy needs in a responsible way.
Michael Hillinger
Etna
Being a typical Lebanon resident, I do not have sufficient time to continually check on the city’s activities online. This ignorance works to a developer’s advantage and to my disadvantage. The Valley News article on Dec. 29 relating to the Mike Davidson Village Market site project proposal proves that ignorance is not bliss (“Village Market site to be developed: Apartment buildings proposed downtown near Colburn Park,” Dec. 29).
The conceptual review of this downtown project of three six-story buildings was presented to the Lebanon Planning Board on Dec. 13.
In the presentation the developer stated, “utilizing a vacant derelict portion of this downtown property instead of a large tract of undeveloped land outside the core, the project helps reduce sprawl and environmental degradation.”
May I add that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that I find Mount Support Road, better known as “Apartment Alley,” an example of sprawl and environmental degradation.
If all three phases of this project were completed, there would be an additional 240 housing units. However, do not have any illusions that these apartments are for working families. It is anticipated 80% would be studio units of about 433 square feet at a monthly rent of $1,500, based on rates of $3.50 per square foot. The remaining units would consist of one bedroom units of 929 square feet renting at about $3,200.
I would state the three six-story buildings do not belong in downtown Lebanon, either in design or purpose.
These are other possible future changes to the Lebanon landscape to consider. No one would appreciate that whole area becoming a visual eyesore.
Residents do have a responsibility to criticize what they believe is an inappropriate direction by the Planning Board. There are many ways we can indicate our concern without waiting for the official comment period at a public meeting. Write to the Valley News or contact the Planning Board at planning@lebanonnh.gov or call 603-448-1457. Money and power do not need to control the direction of our city. Residents should.
Mary Ann Mastro
Lebanon
For those among us who have become increasingly concerned about the widening disconnect between the interests of many women in this country and the direction in which the Supreme Court appears to be heading on the issue of abortion, we have new reason to be alarmed.
During the Dec. 1 oral arguments on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case — which involves a challenge to Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy — Justice Amy Coney Barrett shared her view that women no longer need to be concerned about the impact of pregnancy on their careers or on their economic and personal lives. According to Justice Barrett, the existence of “safe haven” laws should reassure women they will not be forced into parenthood.
Every state has a version of a safe haven law, which allows women to lawfully relinquish parental rights after giving birth. The New Hampshire law titled “Temporary Care and Control of Children at a Hospital or Safe Haven” (RSA 132-A) allows a newborn no older than seven days to be left with a 911 responder at an agreed transfer location or with “a person” at a hospital, fire station, police station or church. The entity accepting the baby is then required to notify the Department of Health and Human Services as well as law enforcement officials within 24 hours. During this process the parent or parents need not disclose personally identifiable information.
Justice Barrett acknowledged that continuing a pregnancy in the absence of access to abortion care would constitute “an infringement on bodily autonomy” comparable, in her view, to mandating vaccines. This astonishing parallel, considered in tandem with her apparent faith in postpartum access to safe havens, is chilling. Her scenario advocates a means to escape “the burdens of parenthood” while simultaneously negating the potential negative health outcomes and emotional impact of both a forced pregnancy and the ultimate release of a newborn to a stranger.
What all of this represents is just one thread of what Linda Greenhouse recently referred to in a New York Times article as “a war for the soul of the country.”
Sheila Shulman
Grantham