To the editor:

I am one of the rural wind turbine opponents Joe Douglas lampoons in his latest letter, but his characterization misses the mark a bit. While I did work hard to pay off my land, I drive a Honda Element with 280,000 miles, and my major source of income is Social Security. I think he’s describing his neighbors more than mine. I don’t want to live next door to a 500-foot tower, but who does?

I oppose commercial-scale wind turbines in Douglas County because a) the county is too densely populated for them to make sense, and b) why should rural residents take the hit for the city of Lawrence’s energy use?

Want a better approach? Here are three measures Douglas County could take to deal with climate change in what I believe to be a more effective and equitable way:

l Conservation. There is no more effective way of mitigating the environmental effects of our energy use, however it is produced, than to use less of it.

l Distributed, small-scale renewables. Less environmental damage and better security, whether from people taking pot-shots at substations or freezing weather in Texas. Also allows you to put your money where your mouth is.

l Regenerative agriculture/carbon sequestration. Here is where rural folks have the greatest potential to fight climate change. Those of us maintaining grasslands are already doing our part to mitigate everyone’s carbon footprint. You’re welcome.

Mahlon Strahm,

Baldwin City