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.