Fossil Fuels

I enjoyed Mike Tidwell's article on phasing out carbon fuels in favor of renewable energy sources ("Forecast calls for pain,", Feb. 6). Taxing carbon is the best way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Having lived and traveled in Germany, I know that the U.S. is way behind in green living and sustainability. In Germany renewable energy is booming. Many people commute via mass transit, trains offer the option to go anywhere in Europe, and bicycling is very popular. Organic stores are everywhere, and everything is recycled so people don't consume as much.

In response to Gerald C. Rose's letter ("Liberals should not tell people what to do," May 8), I can only say, "Well, someone has to. " We have a serious energy problem in this nation, and the continued use of fossil fuels is harmful and futile. I am happy that Mr. Rose purchased more energy efficient bulbs, but he reveals all when he states that his reasoning is because it saves him money. Is this the only reason? I would like to think that he cares more for reducing our use of fossil fuels.

The photo in the Baltimore Sun on May 1 of the white gannet covered in brown oil from the spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a casualty of an invasion, one caused by our relentless desire for cheap energy and willful ignorance of the consequences. A man who earns his living in Louisiana described being able to smell the oil as it approached the coastline, the destroyer of everything he knows and loves. The invader represents an addict who up to now has shown no interest in weaning off of oil. Oil "independence" still means using oil. And the hurricane season starts in less than a month.

Dan Ervin's commentary on lifting restrictions on U.S. companies supplying nuclear power equipment abroad is completely misleading ("A nuclear opportunity," May 6). Nuclear energy is not, as Mr. Ervin says, pollutant free or carbon free. Government regulations allow nuclear power plants to deliberately' and routinely emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every day. Radiation cannot be seen, felt or tasted, so I'm wondering if this is why Mr. Ervin feels he can credibly say that nuclear power is pollution free.

YOU SHOULDN'T grill a steak. But if you must, don't use lighter fluid to ignite the charcoal. If the drought isn't burning up your lawn fast enough, you can mow. But don't refuel your mower by day because temperatures will cook the fumes. Night is also the preferred time to gas up your car, but don't travel alone. Either car-pool or ride the bus, which you can do free in some areas during Maryland's latest air-pollution alert.State health, environmental and transportation officials have plenty of advice and directives to dispense as Maryland copes with persistent Code Red air pollution conditions.

Coal-burning utility companies and coal producers, disturbed by public acceptance of the idea that burning fossil fuels will change the climate, are deciding whether to go national this fall with an ad campaign they tried in three markets earlier this year.The campaign produced nearly 2,000 requests to a toll-free telephone line for more information, said Gale Klappa, a vice president of Southern Co., a coal-using utility based in Atlanta.The goal of the campaign, according to one planning document, is to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)

WASHINGTON - Setting up what is likely to be a lengthy fight with the House, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an energy measure last night designed to reduce the nation's reliance on fossil fuels, while still providing tax breaks for traditional energy producers. The bill, approved by an 88-11 margin, includes tax credits for renewable energy and conservation and loan guarantees for a new Alaskan natural gas pipeline. But it leaves out a major element of legislation proposed by President Bush: a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Al Gore said yesterday that Americans must abandon fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts. "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. "The future of human civilization is at stake." Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal.

It doesn't take a world-class bargain-hunter to recognize that the price of anything, from groceries to electronics, is impossible to assess without considering hidden costs. Like that big-screen TV? Better ask about the added cost of cables and digital sound. A home listed below market price can seem great - until repairs to the cracked foundation, faulty wiring and leaky plumbing are factored in. Yet for decades, the U.S. has embraced an energy policy blithely ignorant of the true price tag of driving our highways and providing electricity to our homes.

AFTER WEEKS of meetings with energy industry executives and their top lobbyists, Vice President Dick Cheney has outlined a national energy strategy that shuns conservation and calls for heavier reliance on oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy. Cheney, who heads a Cabinet-level energy taskforce, views conservation and alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power as unrealistic responses to the nation's energy problem. He favors reviving the nuclear power industry and moving to increase production of the old standbys - fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

Thanks for your article on climate change and rising sea levels ("Survey shows Americans wary of sea level rising," March 29.) Global warming is driving major change in sea levels. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, projected an annual sea level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above projections, according to Scientific American magazine.

I enjoyed Mike Tidwell's article on phasing out carbon fuels in favor of renewable energy sources ("Forecast calls for pain,", Feb. 6). Taxing carbon is the best way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Having lived and traveled in Germany, I know that the U.S. is way behind in green living and sustainability. In Germany renewable energy is booming. Many people commute via mass transit, trains offer the option to go anywhere in Europe, and bicycling is very popular. Organic stores are everywhere, and everything is recycled so people don't consume as much.

Not long after President Barack Obama promised to fight climate change in his inaugural address, temperatures soared to 70 last week in Baltimore - in late January. Our weather continues to be unrecognizable. Last summer was the hottest ever recorded at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport. And across the 48 contiguous states, 2012 was the warmest on record by a huge margin. Globally, the heating trend - fueled mostly by the combustion of fossil fuels - proceeds apace.

The Sun deserves praise for its thoughtful arguments in support of legislation requiring careful study before extracting natural gas through hydraulic fracturing is permitted in Maryland ("No study, no fracking," Dec. 26). Your editorial succinctly outlined the key players and the legislative timetable this debate involves. The enormous advertising budgets devoted to promoting natural gas, and the hype regarding its economic benefits should indeed make us wonder whether the long-term costs of fracking are being downplayed.

Thanks for Nancy Unger's article on Rachel Carson, whose research was denounced in the popular press, dismissed as hysterical, and considered by some to reflect communist sympathies ("'Silent Spring' still echoes," Sept. 16). Carson's story doesn't sound that different from the way scientists who study climate change are treated today. The popular press feels compelled to "balance" the reporting of scientific results with quotes from pseudo-scientists hired by Big Oil. Even though climate scientists have often understated the severity of climate change, their results are similarly dismissed as exaggerated and apocalyptic.

When political conservatives start talking about raising taxes, it's wise to pay attention. Such is the case with a recently-announced campaign by a former South Carolina congressman who believes solving the nation's energy and climate change challenges requires a tax on carbon. The goal of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, according to Robert "Bob" Inglis Sr., a six-term congressman who lost reelection in a 2010 GOP primary (his support for the 2008 federal bank bailout having hurt him with the tea party movement)

GLOBAL warming is as difficult a challenge as public officials have ever faced. Despite inadequate knowledge, we must make decisions that could involve more than a trillion dollars and many lives.But we do know enough that the correct course of action is clear if, instead of first focusing on an international agreement, as we have been doing, we focus on what type of long-range energy policy makes sense.A real problemConcern about the accelerating buildup of carbon dioxide as a result of increased burning of fossil fuels is legitimate.

Not long after President Barack Obama promised to fight climate change in his inaugural address, temperatures soared to 70 last week in Baltimore - in late January. Our weather continues to be unrecognizable. Last summer was the hottest ever recorded at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport. And across the 48 contiguous states, 2012 was the warmest on record by a huge margin. Globally, the heating trend - fueled mostly by the combustion of fossil fuels - proceeds apace.

The big story in The Sun this past week was the unforeseen storm. In the editorial, "Feeling powerless" (July 3), the question asked was this a "freak occurrence?" Your answer makes sense: "Climate science suggests that global warming will make unusual and severe weather much more common. " However, I have a suggestion. Instead of global warming, use climate chaos. What I witnessed in Baltimore on the Friday night of the storm was climate chaos. Only a head-in-the-sand politician would deny that human activity is causing climate chaos.

As wind energy makes increasing headway in reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels and the harmful emissions associated with their use, the fossil fuel industry has launched an increasingly desperate misinformation campaign to muddy the waters about these indisputable benefits of clean energy. The latest attack comes in a Baltimore Sun op-ed by Mr. Charles Campbell, a retired senior vice president of the Gulf Oil Corporation ("Wind farms wrong answer to Md.'s greenhouse gas emissions," July 25)