Fallacious To A Fault

Dear Editor:

I am glad that the community is engaging with my recent op-ed titled “Go Green? Not So Fast.” A great part of American culture is the ability to share information freely and fairly in order to garner new ideas. However, I am confused by the respondents’ reliance on fallacious arguments to make their points.

For instance, it is not an argument to suggest that, because something is six years old, it lacks credibility. This is a fallacy because the information within is still valid in the current scientific community. To wit, The Conversation published an article on June 6 of this year complaining of the very environmental impacts mentioned six years prior. “Renewable energy projects are being developed that damage nature and culturally significant sites. Others are resented by communities, or fail at regulatory hurdles,” wrote the source. It is still a hot-button issue that is being debated, so to suggest it was inaccurate is an inaccurate statement on the respondent’s part.

While one does not deny that climate change exists (in fact, I never denied that it did throughout my piece), one cannot ignore that renewables cause far more harm than the current impacts of coal and gas. The fact that, after a century of solar panels and wind turbines being invented, we are only at 20% functional capacity says everything about the efficacy of these technologies (even in the modern era).

It is also interesting you bring up the placement of turbines in the ocean because that brings up another environmental impact often ignored by Go Green advocates. The placement of turbines in ocean landscapes does not erase the threat to wildlife nor the potentiality for oil spills (yes, wind turbines utilize oils for lubrication, hydraulics and as gear oil). It has been noted on numerous occasions that turbines break down over the ocean waters because the salty air causes extensive erosion damage to the turbine material.

Forest fires are indeed a tragedy, but their cause is not from rising temperatures. It is poor forest management that is causing these raging wildfires. According to the Center For Biological Diversity, “The vast majority of western dry forests are at risk of large, high-intensity fire because of the effects of poor forest management over the past century. The primary factors that lead to current forest conditions include logging large trees, fire suppression, and livestock grazing. Since the beginning of the 20th century, all three of these factors have been present in western forests, and they continue to play a role today.” I encourage Mr. Last to expand his research before he accuses someone of being inaccurate.

What I also noted from the respondents was a tactic known as cherry picking (where someone extracts a certain sentence from the source to make their point while ignoring the rest of the source). While the source is not meant to be a fundamental critique of wind energy, it does not take away from its findings. Especially since these findings continue to be reaffirmed to this very day.

The notion of planting trees is the better solution by comparison as it does not increase carbon emissions, is virtually inexpensive, and (per Princeton University) is shown to have a cooling effect on the Earth’s atmosphere (whereas the other renewables won’t have a cooling effect for 1,000 years). I also never said it was the only solution, but I did say it was the most effective solution by comparison.

Becoming carbon neutral, while great, is not reality. All living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, thus rendering the expectation unthinkable. Unless you plan on changing living anatomy, the world will never be without carbon. In fact, carbon (within limitations) is necessary for the survival of the planet. Rockaway should go green, but in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner. Going green starts with planting trees. Going green starts with better forest management. Going green is possible when done responsibly and my op-ed was to highlight just that.

Katie Larkin