Here’s a quote the TAB attributes to City Councilor Lenny Gentile speaking prior to voting against installing solar panels at the Newton Free Library…
“We’re doing our fair share,” Gentile said during debate March 21. “And I don’t think that the sky is gong to fall if this one particular small project, for very real aesthetic reasons, does not go through.”
I wasn’t there so it’s possible I’m missing some context. But what’s your reaction to what Councilor Gentile had to say?
First of all I agree that a 22 kW array is not going to make or break our efforts to be more sustainable. So we lost this particular site, those who favored it simply move on. But let’s consider this notion of “fair share”. To me that implies we’re motivated by care and concern, it implies effort. “Fair share” means “doing one’s part” as in redirecting resources to address a common problem. Well since the context here is the library project, and the context of that project is the overall solar project, it is time to make something clear about solar in Massachusetts: there is a way to embrace solar energy projects that lets the person or town, etc., putting up solar to claim to be “doing their fair share”, and there’s a way that is really just about money. What Newton is doing is about money, we save money because of the incentives. Period. Its about money. To do more, to make an actual difference, we would retire the SRECS, those are the portion of solar energy systems that represent the “green” attribute of those electrons. But if we did that the financials would not align well, and that wouldn’t be acceptable because it would mean we actually would have to share, as in share our wealth to do something for the environment. There’s a lot of confusion out there about this point, its a pity our leaders are not more forthcoming about what it means to have another company put up solar, have that company own the panels, and that company sell the SRECS. And let me be clear, I love seeing more solar in Newton because it helps the solar industry grow, and it does mean there’s an addition of clean power to the grid. But we the citizens cannot claim that clean power as running our schools or any other part of Newton. That’s what it means to sell the SRECS, you let the holder of the SRECS claim the green attribute. You cannot double count, that would not be fair. Its certainly good that Newton has agreed to this set of solar contracts, but it requires no sharing of our treasure. On the contrary, we are doing it to save our treasure (tax dollars that would otherwise go to pay our municipal electric bills). That too is a good thing, but we need to be clear about it. Sorry Newton, don’t feel all smug about being more green now we have all this solar. We can feel SMART, yes, about saving money — its the green of dollars, not of nature. I don’t know what our “fair share” really would look like, but having a Sustainability Director on payroll is definitely closer to actually doing something. As for these solar projects, in terms of something like addressing climate change, we can’t claim these solar projects as actual effort. At their core, they’re about money.
First of all I agree that a 22 kW array is not going to make or break our efforts to be more sustainable. So we lost this particular site, those who favored it simply move on. But let’s consider this notion of “fair share”. To me that implies we’re motivated by care and concern, it implies effort. “Fair share” means “doing one’s part” as in redirecting resources to address a common problem. Well since the context here is the library project, and the context of that project is the overall solar project, it is time to make something clear about solar in Massachusetts: there is a way to embrace solar energy projects that lets the person or town, etc., putting up solar to claim to be “doing their fair share”, and there’s a way that is really just about money. What Newton is doing is about money, we save money because of the incentives. Period. Its about money. To do more, to make an actual difference, we would retire the SRECS, those are the portion of solar energy systems that represent the “green” attribute of those electrons. But if we did that the financials would not align well, and that wouldn’t be acceptable because it would mean we actually would have to share, as in share our wealth to do something for the environment. There’s a lot of confusion out there about this point, its a pity our leaders are not more forthcoming about what it means to have another company put up solar, have that company own the panels, and that company sell the SRECS. And let me be clear, I love seeing more solar in Newton because it helps the solar industry grow, and it does mean there’s an addition of clean power to the grid. But we the citizens cannot claim that clean power as running our schools or any other part of Newton. That’s what it means to sell the SRECS, you let the holder of the SRECS claim the green attribute. You cannot double count, that would not be fair. Its certainly good that Newton has agreed to this set of solar contracts, but it requires no sharing of our treasure. On the contrary, we are doing it to save our treasure (tax dollars that would otherwise go to pay our municipal electric bills). That too is a good thing, but we need to be clear about it. Sorry Newton, don’t feel all smug about being more green now we have all this solar. We can feel SMART, yes, about saving money — its the green of dollars, not of nature. I don’t know what our “fair share” really would look like, but having a Sustainability Director on payroll is definitely closer to actually doing something. As for these solar projects, in terms of something like addressing climate change, we can’t claim these solar projects as actual effort. At their core, they’re about money.
If every city and town in the country installed as much solar as possible, “to save money,” how much clean energy would be produced? Could it result in taking coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants off line? What if by doing this, it then caused businesses and residents to take notice, and install their own solar arrays? How much energy could it produce? A study done by a number of government agencies projects that if every home installed solar, it would generate appx 1 trillion KWH, which accounts for close to 25% of our electricity consumption as a nation. That’s just residential properties. Yes, they will save money on their electricity bills, but imagine what else would be saved. The Newton Library has 700,000 visitors annually. It could be an incredible teaching tool to help educate people on the merits of solar. Getting to a point where all of our energy is produced by renewable power is not going to happen with one solar installation, but every solar installation gets us one step closer.
If every city and town in the country installed as much solar as possible, “to save money,” how much clean energy would be produced? Could it result in taking coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants off line? What if by doing this, it then caused businesses and residents to take notice, and install their own solar arrays? How much energy could it produce? A study done by a number of government agencies projects that if every home installed solar, it would generate appx 1 trillion KWH, which accounts for close to 25% of our electricity consumption as a nation. That’s just residential properties. Yes, they will save money on their electricity bills, but imagine what else would be saved. The Newton Library has 700,000 visitors annually. It could be an incredible teaching tool to help educate people on the merits of solar. Getting to a point where all of our energy is produced by renewable power is not going to happen with one solar installation, but every solar installation gets us one step closer.
For those folks who say that all we’re doing is allowing a company to profit off of us, while benefiting from federal and state subsidies, I say you’re completely correct. The utility companies receive massive subsidies, all the while profiting off of the rate payers. What’s the difference with Newton’s solar initiative? We share the profits. What else would we use a parking lot for? What about the reduction in heat island effects? What about the carbon offset? I don’t think the leaders are not being forthcoming. I think they saw an opportunity to showcase it’s commitment to renewable energy, while educating the public, all the while turning an ugly parking lot into a profit center.
For those folks who say that all we’re doing is allowing a company to profit off of us, while benefiting from federal and state subsidies, I say you’re completely correct. The utility companies receive massive subsidies, all the while profiting off of the rate payers. What’s the difference with Newton’s solar initiative? We share the profits. What else would we use a parking lot for? What about the reduction in heat island effects? What about the carbon offset? I don’t think the leaders are not being forthcoming. I think they saw an opportunity to showcase it’s commitment to renewable energy, while educating the public, all the while turning an ugly parking lot into a profit center.
I’m guessing Mr. Gentile may be referring to the fact that Newton has replaced a lot of lightbulbs (streetlights, etc), built a few LEED-certified schools, and has entered into a contract with a solar energy provider to host solar on sites around Newton. These are all good things and I’m grateful for the progress that Newton has made and is making and for the team of City staff that are working hard on implementation of these projects. However, I do think many of us are holding a vision where we continue to strive for more because ultimately, we can do more. If we look around us and say “well, they’re not doing as much, so why should we?” this reflects an attitude that many Newtonians are not comfortable with. Some of us even try to think of ways to get to 70% -100% reductions of our carbon footprints. This often requires out of pocket purchases of offsets that not only do not make money for us, but take away from our bottom lines. So “fair share” is a subjective phrase. To make it more objective, he could provide numbers and we could discuss from there. On this point, I don’t know that much about Phase 3 of this solar program, but we may all have the opportunity to put our money into some community solar in the near future with some kind of partnership between the City and the community. I’m very much looking forward to this and looking forward to increasing my “share”, whether fair or not. What kind of community do you envision?
I’m guessing Mr. Gentile may be referring to the fact that Newton has replaced a lot of lightbulbs (streetlights, etc), built a few LEED-certified schools, and has entered into a contract with a solar energy provider to host solar on sites around Newton. These are all good things and I’m grateful for the progress that Newton has made and is making and for the team of City staff that are working hard on implementation of these projects. However, I do think many of us are holding a vision where we continue to strive for more because ultimately, we can do more. If we look around us and say “well, they’re not doing as much, so why should we?” this reflects an attitude that many Newtonians are not comfortable with. Some of us even try to think of ways to get to 70% -100% reductions of our carbon footprints. This often requires out of pocket purchases of offsets that not only do not make money for us, but take away from our bottom lines. So “fair share” is a subjective phrase. To make it more objective, he could provide numbers and we could discuss from there. On this point, I don’t know that much about Phase 3 of this solar program, but we may all have the opportunity to put our money into some community solar in the near future with some kind of partnership between the City and the community. I’m very much looking forward to this and looking forward to increasing my “share”, whether fair or not. What kind of community do you envision?
Misguided question.
Do we ask if we are paying our “fair share” to sustain our health, to educate our children, to address the problem of species being threatened with extinction or to promote human rights? Engaging in responsible behavior is not a competition.
Misguided question.
Do we ask if we are paying our “fair share” to sustain our health, to educate our children, to address the problem of species being threatened with extinction or to promote human rights? Engaging in responsible behavior is not a competition.
Is the glass half full? Newton does do a lot to mitigate climate change. But the situation is serious, worldwide, and many lives will depend on what we do. The impacts are likely to be huge, so even Newton’s slice of the responsibility is very significant.
That said, let’s not beat ourselves up, and let’s go on to do more.
It’s like the recent compromise legislation on community solar project caps. That bill has been likened to a tourniquet: it keeps the patient alive, but only for a short time while a real solution is put in place. We would have liked to see more, but it’s a small step forward.
Is the glass half full? Newton does do a lot to mitigate climate change. But the situation is serious, worldwide, and many lives will depend on what we do. The impacts are likely to be huge, so even Newton’s slice of the responsibility is very significant.
That said, let’s not beat ourselves up, and let’s go on to do more.
It’s like the recent compromise legislation on community solar project caps. That bill has been likened to a tourniquet: it keeps the patient alive, but only for a short time while a real solution is put in place. We would have liked to see more, but it’s a small step forward.
btw, don’t knock Councilor Gentile, whose vote on this was not decisive. He keeps a watchful eye on the City’s finances, which is a good thing, and we need his support going forward
btw, don’t knock Councilor Gentile, whose vote on this was not decisive. He keeps a watchful eye on the City’s finances, which is a good thing, and we need his support going forward
That “one particular project” won’t matter is the same argument that was made for why it didn’t really matter if the Keystone XL pipeline were to be built – it wouldn’t alone matter to the climate. In fact, its true. No single project anywhere has enough impact to matter to the climate. No household alone changing light bulbs will make a dent in the climate. Whether you recycle or drive an EV doesn’t matter. At base its a cynical and indifferent perspective.
But leadership matters, because it inspires others to follow. Its important to take a principled stand on the merits of each meaningful project, and the library carport was meaningful, on both financial and environmental grounds. Sustainability includes a financial dimension, being frugal and generating revenue from saving energy or generating clean energy. If it can’t be about saving money while saving carbon there is zero hope for our planet.
I’m glad that Councilor Gentile was at least so open that this was ultimately about aesthetic preferences, and didn’t conflate his aesthetic preferences with the demonstrable environmental and economic benefits. No one could argue on the relative environmental benefits of the panels versus the trees, because the numbers are unassailable.
The trees here became horticultural shields for asphalt preservation and “parking preserves” (a term coined here in Newton) as open space. Why wasn’t there similar outrage at the magnificent oaks felled at Zervas – for car storage? The library trees were as symbolic as solar panels would have been on city hall. Newton’s parking lot trees could not be touched even if it means that swaths of forest land in Western MA and West Roxbury are clear cut for natural gas pipelines that compete with solar, may cost ratepayers $8B, and and feed our leaking gas pipelines (the ones that aren’t being repaired because the utilities are investing in new pipelines instead and fighting against solar).
That “one particular project” won’t matter is the same argument that was made for why it didn’t really matter if the Keystone XL pipeline were to be built – it wouldn’t alone matter to the climate. In fact, its true. No single project anywhere has enough impact to matter to the climate. No household alone changing light bulbs will make a dent in the climate. Whether you recycle or drive an EV doesn’t matter. At base its a cynical and indifferent perspective.
But leadership matters, because it inspires others to follow. Its important to take a principled stand on the merits of each meaningful project, and the library carport was meaningful, on both financial and environmental grounds. Sustainability includes a financial dimension, being frugal and generating revenue from saving energy or generating clean energy. If it can’t be about saving money while saving carbon there is zero hope for our planet.
I’m glad that Councilor Gentile was at least so open that this was ultimately about aesthetic preferences, and didn’t conflate his aesthetic preferences with the demonstrable environmental and economic benefits. No one could argue on the relative environmental benefits of the panels versus the trees, because the numbers are unassailable.
The trees here became horticultural shields for asphalt preservation and “parking preserves” (a term coined here in Newton) as open space. Why wasn’t there similar outrage at the magnificent oaks felled at Zervas – for car storage? The library trees were as symbolic as solar panels would have been on city hall. Newton’s parking lot trees could not be touched even if it means that swaths of forest land in Western MA and West Roxbury are clear cut for natural gas pipelines that compete with solar, may cost ratepayers $8B, and and feed our leaking gas pipelines (the ones that aren’t being repaired because the utilities are investing in new pipelines instead and fighting against solar).
Thank you all for continuing this dialogue with astute and well informed comments.
Those of us who are looking through the trees to a bigger and very scary energy/environmental picture, who believe that as a relatively more wealthy and privileged community, that Newton can and should shoulder even greater responsibility – even as we strive to balance city financial resources against so many more good causes and needs, …
must now recognize in the wake of this disappointing vote that we have more work to do. We must bring to light the knowledge and perspective we share in positive and constructive ways, to help set the course for future decisions.
I think solar generated clean energy is a beautiful thing, and heard that from the community. At least half of the couple hundred emails and letters we received strongly favored the library installation. And that was with little notice. Many specifically addressed the aesthetics of the canopies, citing as desirous shade, shelter, evening lighting – and the sleek attractive design. Library users and tree lovers alike. The Trustees in fact, had told us that they felt the design would compliment the modern features and lines library building.
Although I take issue with the phrase “very real aesthetic issues”, clearly the majority of Council thought this to be an overriding concern – NOT trees, which we had a plan to responsibly protect and renew.
I also want to share that in PF committee, the unanimous request to remove the city hall roof from the list was due to practical concerns: the age and condition of the slate roof which requires frequent maintenance, and the fact that the particular area proposed is exactly where ice dams and flooding leaks had appeared the previous year. Those were overriding issues for many on the committee. By the way, the Historic Commission had no problem with the location.
When Council decides land use petitions, we are supposed to do so by weighing certain criteria, as codified in our ordinances – not because we ‘like’ the look or style of a project. We are advised by counsel and reminded frequently of this, as many struggle with what they may individually perceive to be attractive – or not. We should I believe, find similar metrics by which to judge all public works.
Also to clarify, there was absolutely nothing secretive about the process of considering city properties that might host solar installations. Phase one, which we know is fully operational – was to install on rooftops that passed the feasibility tests – age of roof, structural stability, mapping for sun – and to take on a manageable number of projects. Phase 2 is to try to go further, but again, to take on a number of projects the department can reasonably oversee. The new Angier school came on line to add to rooftop potential. The landfill became feasible. FIVE well advertised meetings around the city (near proposed locations) presented the concepts. Public Facilities held public hearings open for several months as further information was gathered. Solar canopies, a relatively new idea for Newton – were put on hold in order to better illustrate each proposed location. We’ll do the same for phase 3 – and onward.
With all of the approved phase 2 sites up and running – we’ll be supplying a bit over 20% of municipal energy consumption with clean solar energy. I hope we can look ahead and work on a plan that gets us to 100% !
Thank you all for continuing this dialogue with astute and well informed comments.
Those of us who are looking through the trees to a bigger and very scary energy/environmental picture, who believe that as a relatively more wealthy and privileged community, that Newton can and should shoulder even greater responsibility – even as we strive to balance city financial resources against so many more good causes and needs, …
must now recognize in the wake of this disappointing vote that we have more work to do. We must bring to light the knowledge and perspective we share in positive and constructive ways, to help set the course for future decisions.
I think solar generated clean energy is a beautiful thing, and heard that from the community. At least half of the couple hundred emails and letters we received strongly favored the library installation. And that was with little notice. Many specifically addressed the aesthetics of the canopies, citing as desirous shade, shelter, evening lighting – and the sleek attractive design. Library users and tree lovers alike. The Trustees in fact, had told us that they felt the design would compliment the modern features and lines library building.
Although I take issue with the phrase “very real aesthetic issues”, clearly the majority of Council thought this to be an overriding concern – NOT trees, which we had a plan to responsibly protect and renew.
I also want to share that in PF committee, the unanimous request to remove the city hall roof from the list was due to practical concerns: the age and condition of the slate roof which requires frequent maintenance, and the fact that the particular area proposed is exactly where ice dams and flooding leaks had appeared the previous year. Those were overriding issues for many on the committee. By the way, the Historic Commission had no problem with the location.
When Council decides land use petitions, we are supposed to do so by weighing certain criteria, as codified in our ordinances – not because we ‘like’ the look or style of a project. We are advised by counsel and reminded frequently of this, as many struggle with what they may individually perceive to be attractive – or not. We should I believe, find similar metrics by which to judge all public works.
Also to clarify, there was absolutely nothing secretive about the process of considering city properties that might host solar installations. Phase one, which we know is fully operational – was to install on rooftops that passed the feasibility tests – age of roof, structural stability, mapping for sun – and to take on a manageable number of projects. Phase 2 is to try to go further, but again, to take on a number of projects the department can reasonably oversee. The new Angier school came on line to add to rooftop potential. The landfill became feasible. FIVE well advertised meetings around the city (near proposed locations) presented the concepts. Public Facilities held public hearings open for several months as further information was gathered. Solar canopies, a relatively new idea for Newton – were put on hold in order to better illustrate each proposed location. We’ll do the same for phase 3 – and onward.
With all of the approved phase 2 sites up and running – we’ll be supplying a bit over 20% of municipal energy consumption with clean solar energy. I hope we can look ahead and work on a plan that gets us to 100% !
Randy asked “If every city and town in the country installed as much solar as possible, “to save money,” how much clean energy would be produced?”
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, rooftop solar alone could generate nearly 40% of the nation’s electricity sales.
Randy asked “If every city and town in the country installed as much solar as possible, “to save money,” how much clean energy would be produced?”
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, rooftop solar alone could generate nearly 40% of the nation’s electricity sales.
If every parking lot in the country were covered with solar carports, we could easily generate another 25% of our nation’s electricity consumption via renewable solar energy. This figure could be as much as 50% , depending on the assumptions. The library may be small, but it would be symbolic and could be an example of what we could/should do as a nation. We need to set an example.
If every parking lot in the country were covered with solar carports, we could easily generate another 25% of our nation’s electricity consumption via renewable solar energy. This figure could be as much as 50% , depending on the assumptions. The library may be small, but it would be symbolic and could be an example of what we could/should do as a nation. We need to set an example.
So, here’s a shocker. Newton has a schizophrenic policy when it comes to parking lots and solar power.
I voted against spending $2.5M to tear down three houses for a parking lot at Zervas School because I thought we should not be building so much car storage when we have public streets that could accommodate parking. Now I see that Phase 3 of the solar plan does not include solar canopies at the Zervas School parking lot. Why is that? If we are going to be consistent, we ought to be out there with chainsaws taking down the mature trees in that parking lot to install solar canopies on what would be an ideal south facing sea of asphalt.
I am still against building an oversize parking lot at the Zervas School, but since the majority of the City Council voted to do so, at the very least we should knock down those stupid trees and put up solar carports. Am I right? We would be hypocrites if we don’t.
Discuss.
So, here’s a shocker. Newton has a schizophrenic policy when it comes to parking lots and solar power.
I voted against spending $2.5M to tear down three houses for a parking lot at Zervas School because I thought we should not be building so much car storage when we have public streets that could accommodate parking. Now I see that Phase 3 of the solar plan does not include solar canopies at the Zervas School parking lot. Why is that? If we are going to be consistent, we ought to be out there with chainsaws taking down the mature trees in that parking lot to install solar canopies on what would be an ideal south facing sea of asphalt.
I am still against building an oversize parking lot at the Zervas School, but since the majority of the City Council voted to do so, at the very least we should knock down those stupid trees and put up solar carports. Am I right? We would be hypocrites if we don’t.
Discuss.
Ted, several large oaks HAVE been cut down at Zervas for parking. A few have been left. The damage is done there, with hardly an outcry. Its too shaded for solar, and I wouldn’t advocate for cutting even more of these magnificent oaks.
Ted, several large oaks HAVE been cut down at Zervas for parking. A few have been left. The damage is done there, with hardly an outcry. Its too shaded for solar, and I wouldn’t advocate for cutting even more of these magnificent oaks.
I see, Nathan. But if we take those trees down, it wouldn’t be too shaded for solar. It’s only a parking lot, after all.
I see, Nathan. But if we take those trees down, it wouldn’t be too shaded for solar. It’s only a parking lot, after all.
A tree is not a tree, contrary to what those bathroom paper towel dispensers say. A sapling isn’t the same as a large oak. I was glad the large oak would have been saved at the library. We shouldn’t sacrifice any more large oaks at Zervas for more car storage. No inconsistency.
A tree is not a tree, contrary to what those bathroom paper towel dispensers say. A sapling isn’t the same as a large oak. I was glad the large oak would have been saved at the library. We shouldn’t sacrifice any more large oaks at Zervas for more car storage. No inconsistency.
But the two other mature trees in the library parking lot are toilet paper, I guess. The site plan for the Zervas parking lot shows a lot of new trees on the grass berms (a lot like what we have at the libaray). We don’t need to plant those and could put in solar canopies instead.
This is about striking a balance. I am at least being honest about that. And I strike the balance in a different place from you and some of the other proponents of solar canopies. That’s okay. But if we were looking only at the carbon payback, those trees in the Zervas parking lot would be going down.
But the two other mature trees in the library parking lot are toilet paper, I guess. The site plan for the Zervas parking lot shows a lot of new trees on the grass berms (a lot like what we have at the libaray). We don’t need to plant those and could put in solar canopies instead.
This is about striking a balance. I am at least being honest about that. And I strike the balance in a different place from you and some of the other proponents of solar canopies. That’s okay. But if we were looking only at the carbon payback, those trees in the Zervas parking lot would be going down.
Ted, you said the magic word…BALANCE. I also said it last week. It’s not all or nothing. we can accommodate a balance. I could see solar carports at Zervas over parts that won’t mean chopping down more trees. Won’t Zervas have solar panels on its roof? Is there a maximum collection for solar energy at a given site? Does the roof solar collection reach that maximum?
By the way, I think they looked at geo-thermal energy for Angier but found it too expensive to use.
Ted, you said the magic word…BALANCE. I also said it last week. It’s not all or nothing. we can accommodate a balance. I could see solar carports at Zervas over parts that won’t mean chopping down more trees. Won’t Zervas have solar panels on its roof? Is there a maximum collection for solar energy at a given site? Does the roof solar collection reach that maximum?
By the way, I think they looked at geo-thermal energy for Angier but found it too expensive to use.
By the way…we need toilet paper, too!
By the way…we need toilet paper, too!
Sallee you should only use recycled toilet paper. Which is not, by the way, what it sounds like.
In Phase 3, there are a lot of potential sites which directly abut residential areas. Some, like the Manet Road Reservoir, are entirely surrounded by fences and trees, are off limits anyway, and will be virtually invisible to neighbors. Others, like the parking lot next to the Brigham House in Newton Highlands or various school parking lots, are right next to people’s houses, and we will have to balance their conerns with those of the city’s. Not so easy, but that’s why the councilors get paid the big bucks.
Sallee you should only use recycled toilet paper. Which is not, by the way, what it sounds like.
In Phase 3, there are a lot of potential sites which directly abut residential areas. Some, like the Manet Road Reservoir, are entirely surrounded by fences and trees, are off limits anyway, and will be virtually invisible to neighbors. Others, like the parking lot next to the Brigham House in Newton Highlands or various school parking lots, are right next to people’s houses, and we will have to balance their conerns with those of the city’s. Not so easy, but that’s why the councilors get paid the big bucks.
To produce energy for Newton means other people live next to coal plants and fracked gas pipelines. We should own the impacts of our energy consumption and produce as much clean renewable energy ourselves right here in Newton.
Many people have reached out to me in recent days, having read the Tab story, shocked that the City Council voted down the library carport project.
To produce energy for Newton means other people live next to coal plants and fracked gas pipelines. We should own the impacts of our energy consumption and produce as much clean renewable energy ourselves right here in Newton.
Many people have reached out to me in recent days, having read the Tab story, shocked that the City Council voted down the library carport project.
Ted, if there are estimates of potential kWh of carbon free energy at Zervas versus the carbon and ecosystem services of the to-be-planted saplings, there can be an informed discussion. Otherwise there’s no basis to judge the tradeoffs.
Ted, if there are estimates of potential kWh of carbon free energy at Zervas versus the carbon and ecosystem services of the to-be-planted saplings, there can be an informed discussion. Otherwise there’s no basis to judge the tradeoffs.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by a third since the industrial revolution, and it’s impact on global warming cannot be understated. 1 KW of solar is the equivalent carbon offset of about 6 fully mature trees(30+ years old). The average home solar install is appx 8KW, which is the equivalent of 48 fully mature trees.
This does come down to balance, but if you care about the environment, you cannot deny the numbers. I apologize to mother nature, but solar does more for the environment than her trees ever could.
That said, if the proposal is to install solar, and plant new trees, how can anyone stand against it? We do need to strike a balance. I am not saying we should cut down all of our forests, but can’t we use some common sense when weighing the pros and cons?
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by a third since the industrial revolution, and it’s impact on global warming cannot be understated. 1 KW of solar is the equivalent carbon offset of about 6 fully mature trees(30+ years old). The average home solar install is appx 8KW, which is the equivalent of 48 fully mature trees.
This does come down to balance, but if you care about the environment, you cannot deny the numbers. I apologize to mother nature, but solar does more for the environment than her trees ever could.
That said, if the proposal is to install solar, and plant new trees, how can anyone stand against it? We do need to strike a balance. I am not saying we should cut down all of our forests, but can’t we use some common sense when weighing the pros and cons?
I was disappointed to see that they did not pass the vote to install solar carports at the Library with the biggest deterrent being that they are not aesthetically pleasing.
I am saddened and ashamed that we, as an educated community, are so short sighted and proud as to not choose something that is morally and ethically the right thing to do.
On April 7th, I went to hear Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at UMass Boston. She was the linchpin in solidifying the 2015 Paris Agreement. She had us in tears as she spoke from the heart on how serious the climate change situation is. Fortunately, she left us on a positive note but only if we make personal, public, and planetary choices that will reverse the damage that has already been done.
Newton needs to do our part!
I was disappointed to see that they did not pass the vote to install solar carports at the Library with the biggest deterrent being that they are not aesthetically pleasing.
I am saddened and ashamed that we, as an educated community, are so short sighted and proud as to not choose something that is morally and ethically the right thing to do.
On April 7th, I went to hear Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at UMass Boston. She was the linchpin in solidifying the 2015 Paris Agreement. She had us in tears as she spoke from the heart on how serious the climate change situation is. Fortunately, she left us on a positive note but only if we make personal, public, and planetary choices that will reverse the damage that has already been done.
Newton needs to do our part!