ShareThis Page

A closer look at climate accord

| Friday, July 14, 2017, 8:57 p.m.
A wind turbine overlooks the coal-fired power station in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, in December 2014. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner, FILE)

This is in response to Keith Rothfus' recent op-ed, “A better ‘climate' for America,” and honestly, it's difficult to know where to begin.

In reference to the Paris accord, Rothfus claimed, “The American people would never approve of a deal so harmful to their security and prosperity.”

Yet, as The Atlantic reported, 70 percent of Americans want the United States to remain in the Paris accord.

Rothfus argued that during the 2014 polar vortex, natural gas failed to provide energy to capacity while coal and nuclear energy did just fine.

However, PJM Vice President Craig Glazer stated at the time that coal generation was stymied by “frozen coal or wet coal, frozen limestone, frozen condensate lines, frozen fly ash transfer equipment, cooling tower basin freezing, and freezing of injection water systems for emissions control equipment.”

Rothfus suggest the coal industry's recent woes are due to President Obama's policies. While some policies may have affected the coal industry output, the real driving force has been its own market forces.

Charles Bayless, former chief executive of Tucson Electric Co. and Illinois Power, said, “A gas plant is much cheaper to build than a coal plant and it is much simpler to run.”

Even Donald Trump's director of the White House National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, said coal “doesn't make sense anymore.”

This response is not an attack on coal, but we do need new energy sectors to boost our economy, generate jobs and drive down energy cost.

We should approach the problem like a venture capitalist. The renewable energy industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. The Department of Energy reports that solar energy alone employs 373,807 workers annually, while coal mining employs 74,804. Those are some sobering numbers.

After combining all the jobs produced by hydro, solar, and land- and sea-based wind, we could potentially see millions of new jobs in the future. These new energy sectors could provide jobs from the high school level to the Ph.D. level.

The worldwide market is taking off, and frankly, the United States is falling behind. Saudi Arabia's oil ministry says the country will quit using fossil fuels by 2040. China plans to spend $360 billion by 2020 in renewable energy. India Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched an international solar alliance to raise $1 trillion.

If Rothfus was serious about economic and energy development, he would be writing op-eds about renewable energies to create jobs, not politicized, divisive rhetoric.

It's difficult to believe his position is based on the best intentions for the people of District 12 when he personally profits so much on these “coal” stances.

Discussions toward solving our energy issues shouldn't become a verbal pit match of coal vs. renewable energies. We need to openly acknowledge what is happening in the world, and take advantage of new opportunities for economic growth.

It's also not about eliminating all fossil fuels today, an impossible task. What this means is that we need to develop new energy sectors for our economy, national security, and clean air and water for our families.

Tom Prigg, a research associate at Carnegie Mellon University and an Army veteran, is a Democrat running against Keith Rothfus to represent Pennsylvania's 12th District in Congress.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.