Danskammer proposal not in keeping with climate plans

Rep. Paul Tonko, D-amsterdam, is proud of giving the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill a “climate spin” (“Tonko gives Biden plan a climate spin," March 31). His head must be spinning, too, as his career progresses from confronting outright climate deniers when he first took office in 2008 to working with an administration as serious about climate change as he has been.

However, Eric Weltman, Food & Water Watch, and David Burtis, People of Albany United for Safe Energy, have a good deal of rain to pour on Tonko’s parade. (“Tonko must go big — really big — on green energy plan” March 31).

Using more renewable fuels will not have much impact, they point out, if we continue to burn fossil fuels. They suspect that the Clean Energy Act act is trying “to greenwash fossil fuels like fracked gas.”

Tonko has shown political skill in keeping environmental concerns in the forefront. But the climate presents an emergency that may require more than politics. If the doctor recommended an emergency appendectomy, would you seek a compromise about what to do next?

Once we realize the simple idea that the only way to stop emitting greenhouse gases is to stop producing greenhouse gases, proposals such as the Danskammer power plant no longer make sense.

Sen. Charles Schumer’s position is that “the catastrophe of climate change requires big, bold change.” We need to keep that note of urgency as we consider our next steps.

Alexandra Deis-lauby

New York City