Long Islanders know that greenhouse gasses created by fossil-fuel combustion are the principal cause of Global Warming. We'd like to prevent the destructive environmental changes that higher temperatures would bring: such as increased frequency and greater intensity of super-hurricanes and tornadoes, increased rain-caused floods in some regions and severe droughts in others and melting glaciers, rising sea-level, and submersion of all land areas lower than 400-feet altitude.

We also would like to see more extensive use made of cleaner, less-polluting fuels (oil instead of coal, gas instead of oil, biofuels instead of gasoline), and safer alternative-energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, tidal, fusion) instead of any combustion fuel. [Note: the only non-polluting combustion fuel is hydrogen which creates water as a waste product when burned.] And until reasonably-priced alternative energy is on hand, Long Islanders want to be assured that a cheap, adequate supply of oil, gasoline and natural gas is always available to heat buildings, drive vehicles and generate electricity in power plants that is needed for lighting and air conditioning.

But these laudable desires get pushed back when it comes to supporting major regional efforts to reduce Long Island's dependence on conventional oil, natural gas and gasoline as combustion fuels whose continued use in power plants, buildings and vehicles is essential for the near future, until alternative-energy sources become more practical, available, reliable and inexpensive. We are not helping the environment or ourselves by opposing proposals that would reduce blackouts, fuel shortages, aggravation and economic losses that they cause.

For example, on the North Shore (especially in Suffolk County), there has been extensive nimby opposition to installing in Long Island Sound an LNG (liquid natural gas) securely-anchored offshore marine transfer station, that would provide Long Island with increased amounts of natural gas from world-wide sources to supplement our present inadequate pipeline supply from the Gulf States; which is expected to decrease in amount - but to increase in price. Vocal opponents claim LNG is too dangerous and cite terrible explosion accidents that occurred decades ago when LNG transfer-station technology was new and primitive. But today LNG marine transfer stations operate safely in many widespread areas.

Another reason given for opposing the LNG transfer station is that it may interfere with viewing the sound for the coast. But anchored 10 miles offshore halfway across the Sound, the permanently anchored station would be a small inconspicuous spot on the horizon. The possibility of accidents and view impediments had similarly fueled opposition decades ago to installation of the existing floating oil transfer station anchored about three miles off the Northville coast. But aside from an accident that caused extensive pollution during the oil terminal's early learning phase, it has been functioning without major incident to this very day and there are no visual complaints.

On the South Shore, nimbyists are opposing construction of non-polluting offshore wind turbines which would generate significant amounts of alternative energy that would keep costs to LIPA customers down and provide backup energy to help prevent blackouts. Opponents contend, but cannot prove, that migrating birds would be harmed - and, also, that large windmills merely a few miles offshore would impair the view from the beaches and be ugly to look at.

However, offshore wind turbines are safe, proven, dependable sources of alternative energy that is essential to curtail greenhouse gasses and Global Warming. Alternative energy would also help America reduce its dependence on imported oil from unfriendly, unstable nations.

Viewing of the turbines is likely to imbue viewers with a sense of pride that America is doing something innovative and concrete to help reduce greenhouse gasses and inhibit Global Warming.