EDITOR: I read the Sonoma County airport expansion story (“Project ready for takeoff,” Monday). The subject wasn't fully explored. No mention was made of the downside.
The airport is located in a valley, the sides of which will cause the noise of large jets to reverberate so everyone in the valley will hear them.
The safety increase touted in the article isn't for the present traffic. Yes, big business will benefit; more businesses will be attracted to the area, there will be more advertisers for The Press Democrat, and many of us will profit when real estate values increase. But many of us will no longer have the wonderful place we like to inhabit. Obviously, we have forgotten the tale of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Has anyone considered using feeder airlines to transfer passengers to the two major airports in the area? We could save most of the $53.8 million and improve travel without ruining our home. What about other common-sense ideas that might allow us to have our cake and eat some too? Unfortunately, common sense is almost extinct in the U.S., while greed proliferates. We need to think (ouch) whether money or quality of life is more important and voice our opinions.
I'm a licensed pilot and aeronautical engineer. I love airplanes.
Calculating the cost
EDITOR: Your lead story Saturday (“SR to seek outside opinion on power plan”) reported on the Santa Rosa City Council's plan to hire a consultant to help analyze the Sonoma Clean Power plan. As is well known, the plan will result in increasing our electricity cost but will also result in decreasing global warming.
We know something about the cost; what about the benefit?
My suggestion is that the council should ask the consultant to calculate the impact on global warming of the plan. This is quite easy to do: just calculate the carbon dioxide that will be saved over some fixed period. In fact, this calculation has been done for the European Union, the United Kingdom and other countries by well-known economists such as Bjorn Lomborg, Richard Tol and Ross McKitrick. One result was that the 4,000 wind turbines now operating in the U.K. would result in lowering the global temperature by 0.001 Celsius in the year 2100. The cost? Between 2003 and 2013, the cost of electricity in Britain nearly doubled.