Fecteau: A Greener Alternative to the Burrillville Plant, Please

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Matt Fecteau, GoLocalProv Guest MINDSETTER™

There is an ongoing debate about whether to build a $700 million natural-gas-fired power plant in Burrillville. Both sides have reasonable arguments, but ultimately, Rhode Island should invest in renewable or green energy instead of alternative energy such as a gas-fired power plant as a means to reduce our carbon footprint for the longer term and create environmentally friendly jobs for Rhode Islanders in the process.

The proposed power plant does have some benefits. First, it would provide Rhode Islanders with hundreds of quality jobs. This point is huge for many unemployed Rhode Islanders that are economically hanging on by a thread. With new jobs, the economy would make significant gains. This plant would also bring in millions in additional revenue. This is especially beneficial for a state like Rhode Island which is still recovering from the loss of the manufacturing industry.

Second, there are even some benefits related to the environment. There is significant scientific evidence that backs up the claim that natural gas is a reasonable alternative to other sources of energy such as coal or other fossil fuels such as oil. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists says natural gas power plant can reduce carbon emissions compared to coal plants by 50 to 60%.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

This makes a gas power plant appealing to those so interested in reducing our carbon emissions. More importantly, the power plant would put Rhode Island on a path towards the voluntary agreement set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement so that is beneficial.

Rhode Islanders should be concerned about how climate change especially seas levels will impact their way of life. A good portion of Rhode Island would be underwater due melting glaciers if we don't address climate change here and now on a grand scale. Natural-gas-powered plants have the ability to reduce carbon emissions compared to the environmental abhorrent alternative of coal – that is a fact.

Significant shortcomings exist. This option doesn’t go far enough (or so the critics say) in addressing the human activity that contributes to climate change. Some even go so far as to believe this investment is unnecessary and there are far other more environmentally friendly options available. Rhode Island should embrace renewable energy over the proposed power plant to protect its community and to reduce its carbon footprint.

An investment in solar or wind power should be an option. These types of renewable energy would exponentially reduce Rhode Island’s greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, the price of solar power has been dramatically reduced to be more competitive other energy products, making this investment even more attractive for Rhode Island.

The United States and places like Rhode Island need to look for innovative greener solutions to reduce the carbon footprint that contributes to climate change. This investment into a low-carbon power plant is a step in the right direction, but may not be the most advantageous option available to address climate change.

After all, this is about our legacy. We can address climate change here and now or buy some nice swimwear because we will be underwater in the coming decades.

Fecteau: A Greener Alternative to the Burrillville Plant, Please

Related Slideshow: GoLocal: Benchmark Poll, October 2017

Related Articles

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast