Opinion: “Green” projects shouldn’t damage the environment

Jul 4, 2020
To the Editor:
Politicians often say they are disappointed when solar and other so-called “green” projects are delayed or canceled due to the land’s status as “priority habitat, core habitat, or critical natural landscape.”
Why are we not challenging these politicians and others as to why they would be so concerned when it comes to saving these habitats from impending doom and destruction? Why would any political representative of the

citizenry be against anything which preserves the process of photosynthesis?

When humans and animals breathe, they take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is taken up by plants and oxygen is given off through photosynthesis. There is an equilibrium of oxygen and carbon dioxide created between animals and plants. Without one, the other would not survive for long. 

If it is so “green” to chop down a tree to create space for solar equipment, why do the solar companies never talk about the loss of oxygen generation by those sacrificed trees? Some of those trees will create oxygen for over 100 years, which is approximately five times the life-expectancy of many pieces of solar equipment. 

According to Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph. D., one acre of trees annually consumes the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produced by driving an average car for 26,000 miles. That same acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe for a year.

Save a tree and place solar on existing open space.

Just a little “green” food for thought.

Fred Reynolds