57°F
weather icon Clear

Thoughts on the energy related Nevada ballot questions

In the upcoming November election, we have Question 3 (energy choice)and Question 6 boosting renewable portfolio mandates) on the ballot. After reading the pros and cons for each question, it seems more confusing than ever. However, Monday’s Review-Journal included two short articles that provided me with the information to make a decision.

A 728-page document by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that we “would be in better shape if the world’s leaders could limit future human-caused warming to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit from now, instead of the globally agree-upon goal of 1.8 degrees.” The second article cited a new Harvard study which found that “ramping up wind power in America would also dial up the nation’s temperatures.” The report also concluded that a dramatic, all-out expansion of in the number of wind turbines could warm the country even more than climate change from burning coal and other fossil fuels.

I have decided that it would be in my best interest to have a larger number of companies to choose from for my electricity. As far as Question 6 is concerned, if the Harvard study is correct, by voting to increase renewable energy mandates, we would also be voting to increase temperatures by up to 2 degrees. I thought environmentalists want to decrease the temperatures, not increase them. Vote yes on 3 and no on 6.

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
LETTER: Nevada, California and migration

A recent letter to the editor in response to an editorial about people relocating between Nevada and California shows exactly how politicians can use the same numbers to prove opposite points.

LETTER: Clinton impeachment was about more than sex

The specific charge against Mr. Clinton was perjury: The intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth concerning matters material to an official proceeding.