Put money into alternative energy, not war

There are two possible replacements for the fuels that are being depleted rapidly in our mobile society: alternative energy and sustainable or renewable energy.

Last October Gov. Jon Corzine spoke of supporting alternative energy, specifically nuclear, clean coal and ethanol. These solutions are almost exactly those suggested by President George W. Bush although the two men are of different political parties.

All of these are as profitable as oil for conglomerates but expensive for users. Nuclear plants take years to build, become unsafe (even low-level radiation is accumulative in living creatures), create equally unsafe residue that must be stored for centuries or converted to depleted uranium weapons to make life unsafe for other humans labeled our "enemies" even if babies. These plants take undue amounts of another scarce commodity much more necessary to life than electricity: water. In addition to the cost of this energy, taxpayers are obliged by law to pay for the harm done by accidents.

Is the governor planning to put this kind of dangerous facility in Fort Monmouth?

If coal can be burned without causing pollution or global warming, why has the government not forced utilities to clean up their act? This source of energy is also dangerous to miners (as is uranium), especially when safety rules are ignored. Midwest utility companies have made acid rain that despoils eastern lakes and kills fish (as do uncontrolled nuclear plants).

So what's wrong with ethanol? If you have been food shopping lately and noticed higher prices, they are being raised by the diversion of corn from a food to fuel. Hershey just announced a rise in its chocolate bar price due to the cost of corn syrup going up - and that is just one nonessential food.

So giant nuclear, coal and agriculture companies are prepared to keep up the American way of life - for a price from its citizens.

On the other hand we have sustainable/renewable energy possibilities - inadequate, too costly, not esthetic, plus any other reasons that can be used to keep the public from agitating for freedom from foreign oil and utility polluters.

The billions that are being spent to control Iraq's oil could and should be spent to provide buildings with solar panels, windmills or whatever can be invented. We know that ingenuity improves products as they are developed for use.

Could these efforts to curb global warming and make users free of blackouts be more costly than the thousands of lives and limbs lost in war?

We have been surrounded by poles, wires, transformers, etc. for so long that we do not see their ugliness. Windmills are a tourist attraction in Holland (and in Atlantic City), but not out on the ocean because the view might be impaired for shore visitors (like garbage scows are scenic). The saying "handsome is as handsome does" can be interpreted as the windmill providing cheap (after the original cost), clean electricity despite any despoiling of the scenery. The grid's service can be stopped by one atom bomb exploding a mile high in the center of the United States or even by the overuse of appliances.

Weather, too, as global warming makes for more and harsher storms, can interfere with electric delivery. Thus we have wider and more frequent blackouts, events that would be individual and less devastating with each of us in control of our own energy resources.

Peace and jobs more possible; global warming alleviated. Win-win.

Possibly from his Wall Street days, our governor, like our president, sees business profits a desirable result from alternative energy. As a mother and grandmother, I see a legacy of radiation, pollution, expense and war from their decisions. When will they ever learn!

Amanda Porter

Bradley Beach