In response to an article published in September’s Drummer that criticized Representative Mark Anderson’s environmental record, I believe it is important to present a more balanced and fact-based perspective. While it’s easy to criticize from afar, Representative Anderson has taken a pragmatic and hands-on approach to environmental issues—one that deserves recognition rather than misrepresentation.
There is no doubt that exploring alternative energy sources is crucial for our future. However, the rollout of renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines and large-scale battery storage must be done thoughtfully and responsibly. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Across parts of New England—along Routes 10, 202 and I–91, and into New Hampshire on Route 3—there are visible examples of abandoned or broken-down solar panels and wind turbines. Some panels are damaged by wildlife, weather or fallen trees, and many remain unrepaired. Conversations with local Eversource employees suggest that these systems are often left in disrepair due to the lack of maintenance protocols and logistical challenges.
Moreover, the environmental impact of renewable infrastructure itself is an issue that continues to be overlooked. For instance, many solar panels are manufactured overseas, particularly in China, and are coated with materials that may be toxic over time. If these panels break down or are improperly disposed of, there is a risk of soil and water contamination—yet thorough environmental studies on these risks are lacking.
Wind energy is not without its own complications. In coastal and offshore regions, wind turbines have been reported to interfere with marine navigation, emit frequencies that disturb wildlife and contribute to marine pollution. Windmill blades have even washed up on the shores of Nantucket, raising questions about their long-term environmental impact and recyclability. The lack of accountability for maintaining or replacing these structures only compounds the issue.
Representative Anderson has not ignored these concerns. In fact, he has been proactive, particularly regarding lithium battery storage. Lithium batteries pose a serious risk due to the potential for thermal runaway that can lead to fires that release toxic fumes. Anderson, along with Reinhard Maier, brought this issue to the legislature, urging for more rigorous studies and regulatory oversight. This is a clear example of a representative engaging directly with emerging environmental threats rather than pushing them aside.
Anderson has attended local meetings and taken a stand against developments that threaten protected wetlands, including proposed apartment complexes and battery storage facilities near sensitive environmental areas in Granby. His consistent, local-level involvement shows a commitment that extends beyond rhetoric—he is, quite literally, boots on the ground.
In conclusion, it is disappointing that the Drummer article chose to present a narrow, partisan critique. Anderson has demonstrated a serious, informed, and action-oriented approach to environmental issues. We should recognize the value of a leader who is willing to question flawed systems, advocate for proper research, and fight for the environmental well-being of our community.
Editor’s note: The article referenced above is Deborah Roe’s Opinion piece in the September 2025 issue.