Letter to the editor: Pittsburgh ready for 100% renewable energy | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pittsburgh ready for 100% renewable energy

Two years ago, I was standing at the Highland Park Reservoir at a press conference next to Mayor Bill Peduto, City Councilwoman Deb Gross and community leaders announcing that privatization was off the table for our dysfunctional water system. This was big news.

Little did I know that just minutes later, this news would be overshadowed. Peduto was thrust into the (inter)national spotlight, pitted against President Trump, who had just claimed to represent the people of “Pittsburgh, not Paris” as he bowed out of the Paris climate agreement. In that moment, Peduto took the narrative back and said that not only would Pittsburgh stick to the Paris accord, but we’d move to 100% renewable energy. In that moment, I was a proud Pittsburgher.

June 1 marked two years since that moment, and Pittsburgh has yet to commit to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide and join over 120 cities and five states that have made such a commitment. We’ve seen minimal investment in the renewable sector or reductions in fossil-fuel consumption.

But we still have an opportunity to lead. Pittsburgh should finally commit to going all-in on renewables — and craft a local Green New Deal to build out a local clean energy future for all.

Eva Resnick-Day

Regent Square

The writer is a community organizer for the Sierra Club’s Ready for 100 campaign.

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.