I write today in response to Daniel Lyons’ Aug. 1 piece regarding the economics of the renewable energy transition. While monitoring the effects of the energy transition on Massachusetts residents is a valid concern, I believe he fails to consider some important points.

1) The economic concept of externalities: The study of economics acknowledges that while in an ideal world the price of something would account for all the costs of using it, that is often not the case. Fossil fuels are a perfect example. The cost of filling one’s gas tank does not adequately capture the exponentially increasing costs to all of us of climate change — fires and floods, droughts and hurricanes — both in terms of disaster relief, skyrocketing homeowners insurance costs, physical and mental health issues, crop losses. Climate change costs the U.S. billions of dollars annually and a recent MIT study estimated climate change is already costing U.S. households between $400 and $1,300 per year in increased costs. So while Mr. Lyons seems to feel we can’t afford to invest in renewable energy. I would argue we can’t afford not to.

2) The tragedy of the commons: Mr Lyons’ argument that other states are pulling back from ambitious climate plans so we should too. This is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons — when management of a shared resource results in each person assuming the other will do what’s needed and what they do doesn’t matter. Except it does matter. If each state does its best to address climate change we have a shot at turning things around. I am proud to live in a state which has been taking a leadership role in the clean energy transition and we should continue to do so.

3) The idea that renewable energy will mean higher prices is false. Look at where we are now with an economy which is dependent on fossil fuels and thus vulnerable to geopolitical events such as the war in Iran. When gas prices go up food prices go up. When we get our energy from the wind or the sun we are not beholden to countries like Iran choking off our supply. Renewable energy is generally cheaper than fossil fuels today: “Recent analyses show that utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind are now the most cost-effective sources of electricity in most regions. Solar PV projects can achieve levelized costs of $28–44 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while onshore wind ranges from $20–33/MWh, compared to coal at $102/MWh and new natural gas plants around $59/MWh” (Science Insights, SolarTechOnline, Renewable Institute). Renewable energy, in addition to being cheaper, is more stable, less vulnerable to price fluctuations.

My town, Ashfield, has used municipal energy aggregation to offer our residents a more stable electric rate which is currently lower than the Eversource Basic Service rate and is sourced from 100% renewables. Ashfield is in process of building two municipal solar arrays funded through a grant through the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Climate Leader Community Program. We will be able to pay off our town grant match in a year or two and these arrays will save the town millions of dollars over the life of the panels.

The U.S. ranks near the bottom when looking at efforts to address climate change. We can do better. Framing the renewable energy transition as not affordable is shortsighted. Nothing is perfect but we do need to work hard to transition off of fossil fuels and the state and federal government should continue to incentivize this important work. We owe it to the next generation to do all we can as quickly as we can. It’s not just the right thing to do — it is the smartest thing to do economically when looked at from a long-term perspective.

Alexandra Osterman lives in Ashfield.