For the future, Nevada must go green

To the editor:

Just days after the Review-Journal declared "ozone season" open once again for Southern Nevada, it's surprising that Thomas Mitchell questions the need for a clean energy future (Thursday column). Doesn't he like the freedom to walk outside for as long as he wants to?

Mr. Mitchell's misplaced frustration over Nevada's innovative clean energy programs conveniently ignores the fact that Nevada depends on fossil fuel imports from other states.

In 2008, ratepayers sent $1.7 billion of their money out of state to bring in coal and natural gas to burn for electricity. This leaves ratepayers exposed to volatility in natural gas and coal prices in other places as the economy improves and demand rises.

Reducing our dependence on other states is a key benefit of Nevada's renewable portfolio standard.

As we bring clean energy projects online, we create jobs here in Nevada, stimulate innovation in energy storage, allow ourselves to reduce the use of polluting power plants and place ourselves in competition with China and other manufacturing states for a stake in the clean energy economy.

If we take advantage of our renewable energy potential beyond the requirements set by the standard, we'll then have something to export to states such as California, which is seeking massive amounts of renewable energy to meet its own standards.

Combined with energy efficiency measures, ratepayers could afford to finance this vision, save money on their monthly bills, and create thousands of jobs here in Nevada.

Lydia Ball

Las Vegas

The writer is executive director of the Clean Energy Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for Nevada's clean energy economy.

Long run

To the editor:

Thomas Mitchell's asperity on the rising costs associated with renewable energy (Thursday column) would be justified -- if the scientific evidence didn't show conclusively that failing to transform our global energy economy away from fossil fuels will be exponentially costlier for the country in the long run.

Two of the many things Mr. Mitchell chose to ignore are that the United States heavily subsidizes petroleum with massive tax breaks for oil companies (which means that we pay more for our oil without realizing it), and that the environmental and health effects of burning coal are enormously expensive (which means that we pay extra for coal in the form of cleanup costs and medical expenses).

Even if we don't need renewable energy right now, it's certain we'll need it soon -- and just because China burns coal doesn't mean America gets to evade its responsibilities to future generations and to the world.

That's adolescent petulance, not thoughtful analysis.

Warren Senders

Medford, Mass.