Cigarettes are not addictive said the Tobacco Executive. We will pay for your health care and pensions said the Mine Owner. Opioids are safe said the Pharmaceutical Magnate. We must build here said the out of state Solar Developer.
How often have we been told by rich men from large corporations to believe that they know best? The solar developers are the latest charlatans sent to save us. They tell us that we must allow them to violate our local zoning so they can build where they choose. We must throw out our plans for future expansion of Chestertown so they can have their way. We must believe that they are good because they will plant pollinator gardens.
Really? Why, once again, are we given a false choice of doing what corporations want or pay their imagined consequences?
There is ample evidence that smaller scale, diversified solar installations are more resilient and beneficial to communities’
economies as well as the environment. The Chesapeake Conservancy’s Conservation Innovation Center, using cutting-edge technology, determined Baltimore City and County could produce a majority of their share of solar energy and avoid adverse
environmental impacts wherever possible by making the most of opportunities on already-developed land or degraded land.
Why must we sacrifice open space and farmland so big developers can maximize their profits and satisfy their hedge fund backers? Because the developers have intentionally presented a false choice in order to benefit from federal tax incentives and subsidies.
What if those tax incentives and subsidies were given to individuals and communities instead of to the big boys? What if the huge amount of money and resources that will be spent on new transmission lines went to communities to improve local infrastructure and grow local businesses? What if our communities became more resilient and less dependent on outside energy sources? The answer is communities would benefit and corporations would for a change lose.
Citizens can impact how this story ends. We can stand up to developers and say no to their attempt to tell us what needs to be done.
To make your voice heard, register to speak at the virtual Public Hearing on the Morgnec Road Solar proposal. Send an email to Judge Kristin Lawrence at [email protected] by noon November 1. The hearing will begin on November 4 at 6:30 pm.
Judy Gifford
Kennedyville
Clark Bjorke says
This is an utterly false comparison. This is not a case anything like big pharma pushing opioids on unsuspecting patients or false claims about nine out of ten doctors smoking somebody’s product.Decisions about the placement of such projects do fall within the state and local government’s purview. If it is decided to go ahead with this project, Kent County will be making a contribution to the solution of a global crisis.
I am all in favor of small, private solar installations by those who can afford them, but utility scale clean energy projects are needed in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to meet the climate goals that have been set for the USA – which are far less that what is really needed.
Paula Reeder says
As the admonition goes, consider the source. This is more of the same overwrought yellow journalism already propounded by Ms. Giffords fellow board members and founders of Kent Conservation and Preservation – that has little to no basis in fact. In contrast, both the owners of the property and many area residents and organizations agree that this project represents the highest and best use for the property from both a near and long term community and environmental perspective and definitely merits completion.
Ms. Gifford and her cohort have adamantly opposed virtually every proposal that would assign an alternate use to existing open land in Kent County. If they had their way, development activity in Kent County would come to a screeching halt regardless of associated social,economic or environmental benefits to our community. Would that really be to our collective benefit?
As in all considerations, there needs to be a reasonable and reasoned balance of competing interests and objectives. Regrettably, it’s clear that neither Ms. Gifford nor other Kent Conservation and Preservation principals don’t subscribe to that view.
P.S. Federal tax incentives for renewable energy projects pale in comparison to taxpayer funded subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry. Isn’t it time we all got behind efforts to increase sources of renewable energy in a proactive, meaningful, and productive way and reduce our reliance on polluting fossil fuel powered energy?
Janet Christensen-Lewis says
Paula, you seem unable to discuss opinions that are different than yours without using personal attacks. In this particular case you have used “yellow journalism”, incorrectly, as a pejorative to discredit the writer instead of just saying she is wrong, or that you don’t agree. Judy is not a journalist, she is merely expressing an opinion. Every single thing you have penned has included a personal assault on the organization of KCPA, the writer of the opinion or just blanket abusive remarks about anyone apparently not aligned with your thinking.
PS: you could not be more wrong about federal tax incentives and the amount paid per energy unit created.
Paula Reeder says
Janet – If there ever was a case of the pot calling the kettle black…
And yes, you are the one who is incorrect on the level of subsidies paid to the fossil fuel vs. renewable energy providers. This is not a question of subsidy per energy unit created – You forget that renewable energy development is in its infancy vs. the fossil fuel industry which is mature, ubiquitous – and still dependent on huge government subsidies. You really should stop mixing apples and oranges.
Joseph Diamond says
There is another side to solar installations,
Consider agricultural land owners who want to convert land they own and operate to solar power. They have accepted offers to lease their land and the only remaining step in the contract process is the local planning and zoning rules. Where is it written that unelected clerks and planners get to control use of private property without a condemnation proceeding. There is an assumption that Kent County is an agricultural kingdom and no alternatives will be considered.
Joe Diamond
S Crooks says
Unfortunately, they are trying to steal the property values and rights of their neighbors. Many times, those land owners do not even live in the area and do not care about the community.
Bruce Sibbitt says
There is no need to stop using agricultural land beneath and between rows of solar collectors. Particularly for crops that prefer partial shade. Sometimes the area is used for grazing goats. https://nsci.ca/2019/12/05/agrivoltaics-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work/
Joseph Diamond says
Hi Bruce…..You are correct….but the Kent County Planning meeting over a permit for fifty acres of solar panels on agricultural land [ that would not be seen from any road ] brought a negative decision after input from non property owners and unrelated persons…So the county board apparently did not read the application (s) ….. YES …all flat roof structures should consider solar roof applications…….But this was different…..someone wanted AG land to stay as it is with local electricity supplied by coal burning generators from other states…as it is. YES …by all means feed sheep and not goats ( goats climb if they can ) under the panels…. grow shade crops…..Just do not screw with the coal lobby….. joe
Deirdre LaMotte says
We we’re recently in Italy five miles from Austria in the Dolomites. The number of solar panels on barn roofs was staggering. Wind turbines and solar fields as well. Get with the program Kent County. Put the solar field in
and let our community and environment enjoy the benefits. Smart nations are ahead of us
and, thank god, lack the fossil fuel lobby lies.