Letters to the Editor Editorial Food before football: Long Island’s uphill battle against childhood hunger

We have a hunger problem on Long Island.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food insecurity as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food.” Last year, Long Island Cares published a study that states as many as 230,000 Long Islanders are food insecure, with a staggering 68,000 food insecure children. These estimates come as food prices and inflation continue to climb.

The United States has the largest national economy by GDP on the planet. We lead the world in scientific and technological innovation as well as defense spending. Still, nearly 70,000 children right here on Long Island are food insecure.

In our democracy, citizens finance the government with the understanding that our tax dollars will advance meaningful public ends. In exchange for our votes, we expect government officials to plow our roads, secure our neighborhoods and ameliorate the condition of society in common.

Unfortunately, politicians don’t always follow these guidelines, instead pursuing the policy preferences of the donor class financing their campaigns. Too often, our elected representatives serve special interest groups over ordinary citizens.

The next national budget asks Congress for $858 billion in defense spending — a figure that dwarfs the $122 billion budget request for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

While we certainly acknowledge the necessity of national security, we remind our leaders to balance this priority with the equally significant need of feeding children. The values of providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare are not mutually exclusive.

For New York state, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has proposed cutting funding for the state’s Hunger Prevention and Nutrition Assistance Program — which funds food banks and pantries — from $56 million to some $35 million.

This proposal comes less than a year after Hochul helped broker a deal to construct a new football stadium for the Buffalo Bills — whose owner is worth $6.7 billion — using $600 million in taxpayer funds.

The governor’s decision to prioritize football over food banks is inexcusable, in part benefiting millionaire athletes and a billionaire owner at the expense of hungry Long Island school children. We encourage Hochul to reconsider her budget request, making the appropriate investment in alleviating hunger in our communities.

As with any complex social issue, we cannot blame any person or group. But we must ask ourselves if our elected leaders can do more to combat food insecurity. Fortunately, we have recourse.

Organizations such as Agape Meals for Kids and Long Island Cares are contributing valuably, working to address food insecurity on Long Island and eliminate hunger. We should support such organizations by donating money or volunteering our time.

Childhood hunger should be regarded as a national security risk and a critical societal danger. Children are the next generation of soldiers, workers and leaders in this country. If adequately fed, they will be more competent in school and more successful in life. If not, the entire nation loses.

We must hold our representatives to a higher standard and do our part to support nonprofits making a change. With our aims in focus, let us end childhood hunger on Long Island.

For an Island as rich as ours, to have 68,000 children go hungry every day is more than unconscionable. It’s a sin.

Legitimate issues with wind and solar power

The letter by George Altemose [TBR News Media, April 13] raises some very legitimate issues with wind and solar power. Politicians are often happy to say that power will be 100% carbon free by a certain date. Such claims as Sunrise Wind providing power for about 600,000 homes as Altemose recounts makes clear the claim is about making electricity generation carbon free; the much more difficult issue is to make all energy use carbon free. Currently, electricity generation amounts to one-third of the energy used by New York state, and of that, about half is already carbon free, coming mainly from nuclear and hydro sources. The other energy uses are about one-third for transportation and one-third for everything else, such as heating buildings and industrial uses. The national goal is to decarbonize electrical generation at the same time that other energy requirements are shifted to electricity, for example, electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Electrical power generation has to be matched with the demand. As Altemose points out, wind and solar are intermittent sources and there are times when more power is needed than they can produce. It is important that the system includes sources that provide a baseline power such as nuclear, and also power that can be turned on when needed such as hydro. Altemose mentions several forms of energy storage systems that would need further development to address the shortfall in renewable energy. Another key component is the ability to import power from other regions where the wind may be blowing or the sun shining, and for this the grid must be modernized and upgraded. The Inflation Reduction Act includes $65 billion to upgrade the grid and make it more resilient. Once the grid is improved then market forces for electricity should help to distribute energy from the whole country to where it is needed. A high voltage DC line can carry power 1,000 miles with only a few percent losses.

Additional power will need to be added to the electrical system, to account for electric vehicles and heat pumps. Estimates are that this is comparable to the percentage increase in electrical demand that happened when air conditioning became more widespread. It will happen over tens of years and all systems must be improved over that time scale.

This transition to green energy will not be easy, and the fossil fuel companies will continue to fight it tooth and nail, but we must do it to keep the Earth a good place for humankind. The U.S. has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other country, including China, so we must lead the solution of this worldwide problem, and it is good for business to do so.

two known faults. The latter is located in the most densely populated section of the country. It’s 35 miles from Times Square and less than 50 miles from Smithtown.

Peter Bond,

Stony

Brook Gene Sprouse, South Setauket

The drawbacks of nuclear power

In his recent letter [TBR News Media, April 13], George Altemose touts nuclear power as a solution to global warming. Certainly nuclear power, which emits zero greenhouse gas, should be considered with an open mind. The problem is that Altemose’s letter fails to mention its drawbacks.

First, there is the problem of nuclear waste and its ultimate disposal. High level radioactive waste is extremely lethal even in small quantities and remains so for tens of thousands of years. Although the nuclear industry claims that underground disposal in leak proof containers would be safe, I remain skeptical of human ability to fashion something that remains intact for such a length of time.

Another problem is security. Currently the largest nuclear reactor in Europe is in a war zone in Ukraine. One of the targets considered by the 9/11 terrorists was a nuclear power plant. Nuclear waste, most of which is currently stored above ground in concrete casks, presents a tempting target for terrorists or enemies.

Another issue is accidents. A nuclear power plant is incredibly complex in design and operation. Even with the utmost care and precision the unexpected can occur, leading to a dangerous accident. In his Feb. 23 letter, Altemose mentions Diablo Canyon and Indian Point. The former is located in an earthquake zone, near

Lastly there are the massive cost overruns and delays in building nuclear plants, which are extraordinarily expensive to begin with. An MIT study indicates these cannot be attributed solely or even mainly to safety regulations. Two new reactors being built in Georgia are currently five years behind schedule and have a cost overrun of some $20 billion beyond the original estimate of $14 billion. This is not an isolated instance. When cost overruns occur, who do you think pays? Hint: it’s not the power company, which makes a regulated profit, and it’s not the government. Here in Long Island we all remember the Shoreham fiasco.

One promising proposal by MIT engineers and others is to build small modular reactors, instead of the behemoths currently completed or under construction. However this technology has yet to be implemented, still produces nuclear waste and requires increased transportation of nuclear fuel.

If we’re going to seriously address global warming it’s important to keep an open mind and to consider costs and benefits rationally. That’s why I have trouble understanding why Altemose and others are so reflexively hostile toward solar and wind power. As of the end of 2021, the U.S. had 120,503 megawatts of solar photovoltaic power capacity. China had 306,560 MW. There’s a similar disparity for wind. The U.S. and China have virtually the same land mass. China is far more densely populated.

So is Altemose saying that the U.S. is technologically or otherwise incapable of matching or exceeding China? I just don’t believe it.

David Friedman St. James

WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL

We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation. Email letters to: editor1@tbrnewsmedia.com or mail them to TBR News Media, P.O. Box 707, Setauket, NY 11733