Green equipment can't cost customers more

Jan. 1, 2011
The Letter to the Editor from Michael Gray struck a real cord with me. I have, on a couple of occasions over the past year

OMAHA, NEB. — The Letter to the Editor from Michael Gray struck a real cord with me. I have, on a couple of occasions over the past year, wanted to sit down and write you and your publication a strong note regarding your pushy positions on the green movement. Maybe it is a Midwestern thing, maybe it is just a reflection of your conservative, entrepreneurial readers vs. a liberal East Coast editorial staff, but your one sided position on the issue has really ticked me off on more than one occasion.

Let's be honest, at least a portion of your readership, and a majority of the American population, see the whole global warming/green movement for what it is — a scam! An anti-capitalistic scam at that. Although it has gone unreported by your publication, the scientists who were behind the "measurements" have been proven themselves to be unreliable at best, and acting with criminal intent to defraud the public at worst (and most likely). Their data was skewed; they suppressed conflicting data, and willfully sought to discredit and intimidate anyone who questioned the data or their methodology. This is not science; this was geo-political thuggery.

I have no problem with promoting ecology in the form of efficiency, but to falsely promote it as having a real impact on the climate is wrong and promotes the wrong value of the equipment. Maybe there is a market for up-selling green on the Left Coast and parts of Vermont and New York, but for the rest of us in "fly-over country," going green for the sake of showing off for our neighbors or because of some self-inflicted guilt carries no weight. Sure, if going green won't cost anymore, then many Midwesterners will say OK, but if it adds cost to their unit — forget it!

I would like to see your publication focus on the real payback, in real dollars, for the equipment and technologies you are featuring. Solar? Love the idea. But, I have yet to see anyone show a projected payback chart on the equipment for adding a solar panel. Wind turbines! Hell, I'd go out and buy 100 acres and put a few up, if I could ever figure out the payback on them! Everyone I have spoken to about wind towers has told me that they are only expected to last 15 years at best and that the only way to make them work (financially) is through heavy government subsidies. Or cap and trade legislation? Really? Is this being responsible, taking tax dollars to subsidize General Electric by making Americans buy their light bulbs (since the patent on the old models ran out long ago) or using tax dollars to help GE keep their windmill plants in operation? All under the guise of savings us from global warming of a projected increase of 1.5°C over 50 years (based on bad science)??!!!

Please rethink your editorial slant. Show me how I can save the customer money through increased efficiency, not why I should be another global cheerleader in Al "Elmer Gantry" Gore's marketing machine.


Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Contractor, create an account today!

Sponsored Recommendations