The recent commentary on offshore wind (“Md. offshore wind projects may hurt, instead of help, environment,” July 13) contains some unsupported statements that no environmental benefits will be delivered and the projects will contribute to global warming. Even though the contentions are attributed to the Maryland Public Service Commission’s own consultant, they make no sense. If wind power is utilized, why would overall carbon emissions in the area of PJM's central and western area increase?
The statement is made that industrial and agricultural customers are exempt from rate increases, but later it is stated that business customers' bills will increase by about 1.4 percent. These claims contradict each other. Next, "Carbon emissions have no local adverse affects, therefore reducing them would in Maryland will not benefit the state," is directly opposite of the following sentence regarding regional emissions contributing to global warming, which does harm the state.
The math is incorrect in developing the spending per job — dividing $2 billion over 20 years for 9,700 jobs results in about $10,310 per job per year, not over $200,000 per year. Some of the added costs go directly to payrolls and workers' pockets, so that would seem to be a positive. What data supports the observation that “many of these workers will likely live out of state"? Even if true, these workers will be spending money in the state, supporting Maryland's economy. If pollution and global warming is to be addressed, spending must increase — countering it is not free. We should not be so parochial in addressing spending to reduce pollution and global warming — many states and municipalities have endorsed combating pollution and global warming.
Stephen R. Judson, Gambrills
Send letters to the editor to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include your name and contact information.