Kuster fosters
a strong economy
We have a choice about the direction we want our economy to go this November. We can vote for Republicans, who have blocked economic support from reaching our state and stood against common sense measures to strengthen our infrastructure, to secure our economy from dependence on foreign resources, and to bring more manufacturing and industry back home.
Or we can vote for Democrats who invested in innovation to create jobs and move our economy forward, who delivered targeted relief to our communities and small businesses, who invested in American energy independence and who fought for fair treatment and compensation for workers rather than siding with big business.
It is clear that Democrats stand for growth and prosperity, for embracing the potential of new technology to drive the economy, and Republicans stand for stagnation and corporate control.
Here in the Second District, the contrast is even clearer. Annie Kuster is the only choice to guarantee New Hampshire’s continued economic growth. Just a week ago, she unveiled her “Lower Cost & Stronger Economy Agenda,” which will combat inflation and provide a comprehensive roadmap for what needs to be done to relieve Granite Staters, such as expanding access to affordable high-speed internet and increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Annie fights for New Hampshire, she knows what it takes to build a stronger, more resilient economy, and she is doing the work to get us there. She has earned my vote, and I think she should earn yours too.
Elizabeth Murphy
Haverhill
Biomass energy
worsens global warming
Your article “Will 2023 Be ‘Year Of Biomass’?” (Sept. 27) sheds light on a misguided initiative by key New Hampshire Republicans to revive a technology that’s both environmentally destructive and highly inefficient.
Dartmouth College saw the error of its ways, dropping plans for biomass after paying closer attention to environmental scientists, who pointed out the toxicity of byproducts created by burning huge amounts of wood and the negative impact of the required timber harvesting. And some European countries with biomass plants have learned that using wood as an energy source can be a slippery slope. They are laying waste to old growth forests to feed those facilities because the supply of low-grade timber is running out, a trend that no amount of replanting can offset.
Biomass is by no means carbon neutral; in fact, quite the opposite: it exacerbates global warming. It’s ironic that some local and state governments in New England would rather commit to the vicious cycle of tree destruction and pollution production that comes with biomass than do a one-time timber cut to open a path for transmission lines to bring clean hydro-electric power from Canada.
Jim Lustenader
Hanover
Dartmouth’s morals
and financial acumen
“Center of Power” in the Valley News of Sept. 11 seems to omit any significant discussion of the morality and financial and business analysis of Dartmouth’s environmental impact.
The internal policy statement on environmental issues subordinates moral and ethical matters to the fiscal impacts.
Since a policy discussion on the website emphasizes the importance of fiscal matters one might think that the discussion would include a substantial financial analysis. This seems to be lacking.
A sound and rigorous business and financial analysis might clarify the fuzziness of the current thinking.
Paul Tierney
Norwich