Dear Editor:

It is pointless to discuss the Green New Deal as a serious policy proposal with the Wemstroms, as its ruinous costs and disparate goals guarantee it will never be enacted (MDTJ March 13-14). As Paul Tice noted in the Wall Street Journal (3/13/19), "It reads more like a progressive letter to Santa Claus than a serious piece of legislation."

No, Chuck, we will never see mass transit in northwest Illinois beyond the subsidized dial-a-ride we already have for the reasons I have explained previously and which you refuse to understand. No, Chuck, we will not suddenly switch to a diet of apples, blueberries, pumpkins, and zucchini, even if supplemented with a little beef, corn, beans, and dairy, especially when that switch comes at a higher price than what we have now.

Pat's understanding of power generation is no better than her husband's grasp of the economics of mass transportation or farming. She envisions future nuclear power plants as being built with the 50 year old technology of existing plants. Perhaps she should Google up the large number of alternative designs available which have been sidelined for various reasons, not least of which is the Green infatuation with solar cells and windmills.

She clearly chooses to ignore the effects and esthetics of covering millions of acres of land with solar cells and "bird Cuisinarts" to generate 100 percent of our energy needs, not to mention the effects of doing so on Chuck's bird-watching and ecotourism economy. See Germany for an example of what happens to greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs when nuclear power is phased out in favor of wind and solar with coal-fired plants burning lignite as a backup. Their solution is to replace the lignite with Russian natural gas with all the national security risks that implies.

"Climate catastrophe" is the motivation the Wemstroms cite for this jump to an expensive sackcloth and ashes existence, and they may have a point. An Associated Press dispatch reported that Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, "said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. As the warming melts polar ice-caps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday."

Oops, I just noticed that that dispatch was dated June 29, 1989. Our 10-year window of opportunity to solve global warming is 20 years in the past. Should we still wreck our economy to enact changes that will do almost nothing to solve a perceived problem?

David E. Hanson