May 14, 2014
Letter writer Taylor Smith-Hams rightly points out the need for a price on carbon to fight climate change: By making fossil fuels more expensive than renewable energy, the market phases them out ( "Carbon fee is best climate change option," May 11). But where would that tax money go? Eight Nobel economists and the Harvard economist who co-wrote the latest IPCC report support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, paid by fossil fuels directly to consumers, not the government. Consumers will have that tax money to protect them during the transition period.
February 28, 2014
It makes no sense to invest billions of dollars into such a dead-end technology as oil pipelines which will be obsolete and of ever-declining value over the next dozen years as we burn up yet more and more of our declining fossil reserves ( "Keystone XL is one more hole in a sinking ship," Feb. 5). Instead, we should be investing in long-distance electric transmission lines to move our unlimited, renewable, 100 percent American electricity resources from where they are plentiful to where they are needed.
November 1, 2013
Climate change is a looming problem that will affect developed and developing countries. Developed nations have historically - and primarily - contributed to this problem, despite the fact that developing nations will be disproportionately affected in coming years. Social and environmental justice issues are inherently linked to climate change. Thus, it is critical to produce behavior change in developed countries and help developing countries adapt to climate change. Part of tackling climate change is understanding why humans harm the environment.
May 10, 2013
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.
May 9, 2013
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.
April 2, 2013
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.