Use reason in clean energy debate

 Use reason in clean energy debate

Since the oil crises of the 1970s, much has been written about our Nation's need to end its dependence on ''foreign oil.''

The United States remains vulnerable to the mercurial political landscape of the Middle East, Venezuela, Mexico and other oil producing regions.

Over the past two decades, the threat of global warming and reported links to carbon emissions has led to a ''green movement,'' with the call for clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and crop-derived fuel such as ethanol. While not renewable, nuclear power is efficient with very low carbon emissions.

But clean energy sources themselves have come under intense scrutiny. Hydropower in Maine, for example, has been in steady decline as dams are removed in favor of river habitat restoration.

Ethanol has become maligned due to reports of engine damage, high refining costs and food crop displacement.

The decision by the Obama administration to cancel plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain raises questions about the viability of nuclear power generation.

Recent newspaper headlines attest to the ongoing public discourse on wind energy in Maine.

Despite steadfast support from the Baldacci administration, Maine Audubon and host communities who benefit from tax revenue and job creation, conversations about noise, tower visibility and wildlife habitat signal the need for public outreach and education.

Energy independence will bring change. It is up to each of us to weigh the benefits of national security, job creation and tax revenues against the change in landscape and environment that comes with wind, solar, hydro and other clean energy projects.

We must be resolved to make educated, balanced decisions with an eye toward the greater good.

Todd Coffin

Freeport