John Pepi’s recent column “Not Quabbin-ize, but eyes on the prize,” [Recorder, May 29], starts out by presenting a reasonable counter argument to those of us in small towns who object to House Bill 4501’s removal of a local voice in “alternative” energy projects. Unfortunately, he quickly descends into a sarcastic and insulting tone, stating that in the end that those of us in the small towns only care about our own welfare and that of inconsequential “spotted salamanders” and “sacred acres” of state forest.

Not only is this insulting, it begs the real questions being raised concerning what constitutes alternative energy, how to include local residents in the decision-making process, and how to safeguard the lives of those (both human and otherwise) in proximity to the proposed projects.

He asks the question, “should we rely on 351 individual towns to make the decisions that will determine whether we successfully reach the commonwealth’s 2050 zero carbon target?” In my view, the answer to that question is, “who else?” He implies that people will be driven by the principle of “not in my backyard,” but this eschews the democratic process that is at the foundation of effective problem-solving.

Of course, individual towns cannot have complete control, but does that then mean that the state has complete control? This kind of black and white thinking does not lend itself to a comprehensive and cooperative process that must be the basis for successful and effective decisions.

Spotted salamanders may not hold the fate of the world in their hands, but the writer’s failure to understand that disrupting the balance of the natural world and endangering the lives of both humans and animals is not the way to solve the global problems we all face.

Diane Kurinsky

Wendell