WarrenS has taken on an admirable resolution: to send a letter to the editor (LTE) (or, well, a major politician) every single day, on the critical issues of climate change and energy. This discusses his approach and here is an amusing 'template' for rapid letter writing.
Now, I have always written letters and even had many published -- just not one every day. WarrenS inspires me to do better.
Many newspapers state that they will reject letters that have been published elsewhere, thus I have not been blogging letters ... perhaps that should change. Thus, on a delay from 'rejection' (or lack of publication), here is an installment of the "unpublished letters" series publishing those LTEs that don't get picked up by the editors.
After the fold is a letter that I sent to The Washington Post back in September that went unpublished (although another sent that day did get published).
Notable in this letter, something to pay attention to imo, is that this responds to an OPED by Jared Bernstein, "chief economist and economic adviser to the vice president from January 2009 to May 2011, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities." The letter's point highlights what seems to be a failing among all the economists surrounding the President and Vice President -- shortfalls in understanding "green" and in understanding the systems-of-systems benefits of 'green' measures.
5 September 2011
To the editor,
In "A jobs program -- and a boon for kids" (1 Sept, opinion), Jared Bernstein, Mary Filardo, and Ross Eisenbray accurately identified boosted school infrastructure investments as one of the most cost-effective paths forward for reducing unemployment while increasing U.S. economic competitiveness for decades to come.
Sadly, they go wrong with the following sentence.
The work that FAST would enable — insulating buildings; fixing or replacing windows, roofs and HVAC systems; and implementing green measures, such as adding solar panels or wind generators — is still highly labor-intensive.
"Green measures" are not some sort of glorified add-on of show renewable energy. Improving insulation, fixing leaks, white roofing, putting in modern HVAC systems, etc ... these are all core to any "green" retrofit program.
And, by incorrectly pigeon-holing "green", they miss a significant benefit stream. Not only will this lead to reduced utility costs, but also healthier and better performing students. In fact, 'greening the school house' might be the only way to save money while achieving improved performance. And, what does that improved educational achievement mean: a stronger United States for decades to come.
