Opinion : Letter to the Editor: Living in the present, the past forwards the future

Dear Editor: (forgive the length - if you read grab your favorite beverage first.)

Living in the Present, remembering some past events on the farm: and future energy sources

One of the more pleasant experiences of age and retirement is that I have time to read books. I mean books, not the electronic ones but ones with pages made of paper. One other thing about age - one of my wiser friends treated me with this profundity; "It is easy to get old; it is hard to be old". Man does that hit home. Anyway to the point: I was four years old when WWII ended. We lived on the farm which was called the "home place" that my Grandfather, Wesley, now deceased, owned. My Father Lloyd managed the farm and all outside while mom, Ruth, managed all inside. Our illumination in the evenings was by kerosene lamp, Mom's cook stove was fueled by corn cobs, heat in the winter was by a small furnace in the living room fueled by "fuel oil". Mondays were wash days the Maytag washing machine powered by a one lung two cycle engine made the day a little easier, but watch out for the wringer - things sometimes got caught. Our toilet was outside, a two holler - warm in summer, cold as the devil in winter. The work was hard, and the days started early and sometimes late at night. Father small in stature was immensely strong as hard labor will do to one. His only bad habit was smoking, (and cursing) I still remember the little bag of Bull Durham and the cigarette paper held just so and the tobacco sprinkled just so. A lick on the paper rolled just so and a short smoke appeared - a "strike anywhere" match lit up the affair - again just so. A few years later he turned to "tailor mades" first Chesterfields then Camels - the reason Chesterfields made him cough - at least that's the excuse he gave. In 1947 we moved to what was called the 'Johnson Farm". Dad paid cash for the 160 acres of gently rolling Dinsdale Soil. Also we now had electric power and indoor plumbing. Man, the wonders of modern science. Now, though labor was still hard, these modern items made life a little easier.

Oh I know I ramble on but the previous history brings me to today. The latest book I am reading is by Jason Chaffetz, "The Puppeteers, The Deep State. I am only on page 49, but the subtitle to this short piece "Hidden Trade-offs of Renewable Energy" struck me as quite profound. Forgive the length, I will paraphrase, but it is important information for what we now face as "renewable energy" - Is it without unrealized hazards? Thus:

1. We have no guarantee that renewable energy fully deployed will have less impact on the climate than our current reliance on petroleum fuels. Improvement is all conjecture and to get us in line the elitists scare us to believe the Earth will end in a fiery death with us as well.

2. With investments in ESG funds (Environmental, Social, and Governance) they are guaranteed to divert wealth from one sector of the economy to another more favored by the Administration - disregarding normal market forces.

3. What are the tradeoffs of favored energy sources? The increase in material extraction that will be required to meet world demands for solar and wind power by 2050 is astounding. Among them are ----

4. Renewables will require 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and a minimum of nearly 5 billion tons of iron.

5. Extraction of neodymium for windmills would need to increase by 35%. Silver for solar panels needs to increase by 38-105%, indium would require a 920% increase in extraction.

6. Lithium extraction for batteries would need to increase by 2,700% over current levels.

7. Are we to believe that the above increased extraction of resources is without harm to our environment and excludes dangers to the health and wellbeing of those who labor to extract these resources?

8. As I have heard from the time of my youth "there is no free lunch". No improvement in life comes without cost.

9. The mainstream media has not done their job - they have given us only positives of our moving to these renewables. The movement to the green deal will be very expensive, particularly burdensome to the working middle class and those below the poverty level.

We should demand to know the negatives as well, as we the little people will pay handsomely for the change while John Kerry and Al Gore will continue to pollute with their mansions and the use of private Jet aircraft. How much pollution occurs when attendees meet in World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos Switzerland? Oh sure the dozens of private jet aircraft and the dozens of limos are pollution free - right? Remember knowledge is power - restriction of pros and cons is propaganda.

Regards and blessings,

John Stiegelmeyer