To the Journal editor:
It is unfortunate that elections are often filled with proposals that are well intentioned but miss the mark. This November election is no exception. Proposal 3 is an attempt to address global warming and excess carbon burning. One cannot legislate technology.
If solar or wind energy was cost effective, we would all buy it and no proposal would be necessary. I am a strong proponent in research for alternate energy. I have a "camp" that is off the grid and near fully energy independent with solar energy. It is cost effective in this application. I installed a 10KW, $65,000 windmill in Marquette.
Even with the tax incentives it will take 133 years to pay for the windmill. The company promised me 1000-2,000 KW per month and I got 3,000 KW for one year at a savings of only $300 per year. The only way for the alternative energy industry to get people to purchase their products is to grossly exaggerate their capabilities or legislate it into our lives.
Global warming is clearly a reality but we can't legislate technology that is not even close to cost effectiveness. The solutions are out there and the government needs to invest in research to develop cost effective solutions.
Once this has been accomplished, everyone will jump on the new technology. Though I am a firm believer in energy conservation and renewable and alternative energy, I am voting no on proposal 3.
Matthew Songer MD, MBA