OPINION & EDITORIAL
Board misses point
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Stuck in soot (November 29, 2006)
- Coal power plant undermines UW (November 20, 2006)
- Setting the record straight (March 7, 2005)
- Ed board makes headlines by opposing everything (January 31, 2002)
- Herald editorial board mischaracterizes UC position (November 8, 2001)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, December 1, 2006
I am deeply disappointed in the Editorial Board's position in their recent article "Stuck in Soot." The Editorial Board's recommendation in regards to the future of the Charter Street coal-fired power plant completely misses the issue. I commend the Board for their stance against the use of coal; however their idea for the future contradicts their stance. Requesting that the University spend the next five years researching ways to transition toward cleaner energy is absolutely unacceptable.
First of all, we cannot wait five years to make the switch to cleaner energy. The University already has plans to bring another coal-fired power plant online within the next five years. The research you ask for during this five year period has also taken place already. The University can already see the success of the West Campus Cogeneration Plant, which should serve as a model for what we might be able to bring to Charter Street as well as the other coal-fired power plants on the isthmus.
Second, I cannot believe the Editorial Board would publish such an opinion after recent events reported in the Herald. A Department of Natural Resources hearing on the Charter Street plant was held on Wednesday, November 15, followed up by an article in the Herald the next day. In addition, there was an article in the Herald the very same day as the editorial in question, reporting on the hundreds of postcards from the community that were brought to Chancellor Wiley's office. The editors have chosen to publish these articles to show the community's support of cleaner energy and a change of plans for the University. Why, then, would they publish their own opinion, directly in conflict with the stories they report? The community has spoken its opinion on the issue, and the Editorial Board ought to be ashamed of their contradictions.
Paul Lee UW-Madison sophomore Sierra Student Coalition- Co-chair for Spring semester
Anonymous (December 1, 2006 @ 11:20am):
Editorial functions separate from news...what a concept.
Anonymous (December 1, 2006 @ 12:50pm):
We CAN wait another five years, just watch.
Anonymous (December 1, 2006 @ 1:58pm):
Where's the CFACT guy with his pebble rock nuclear reactor blurb?
wait for it....
wait for it....
Anonymous (December 1, 2006 @ 2:27pm):
What, you don't think that a pebble bed nuclear reactor could be installed in five years?
But yer probably right, we should wait until we can buy pre-fab pebble bed nuclear reactors from China. That might be sooner than five years anyway. Until then just pack some newspaper under yer clothes to keep warm.
I sure hope China will still be willing to take pieces of paper in trade for actual goods when the time comes.
Anonymous (December 2, 2006 @ 2:56pm):
like clockwork...
Anonymous (December 3, 2006 @ 4:52pm):
Fine, rag on nuclear power.
What would you suggest?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116887.html
Anonymous (December 3, 2006 @ 8:08pm):
Instead of using technology to find ways to make more, we should be using technology to find ways to use less.
