Encourage tech, ignore hype
I have been encouraged to see several letter writers talking positively about the technological advances of distributed energy systems. We definitely need to encourage the development of economical distributed solar energy harvest and the continued development of more cost efficient energy storage. However, a tax on carbon production to reduce or eliminate carbon-based fuels is a bad idea that is not factually based and will likely have huge social costs. The transition to distributed energy systems is happening naturally as green energy becomes more economically competitive.
The belief that the slight increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused by human burning of carbon-based fuels, will cause future disasters is far from proven. The crisis-oriented news media has hyped any unusual but natural weather event as a crisis supposedly caused by climate change. Previously it was hyped as a result of global warming but that crisis has not happened.
With China and India rapidly adding new coal fired electrical plants plus other industrialization, world-wide carbon dioxide production is not going to decrease in the near future even though the U.S. production has dropped dramatically. In addition, the by-far largest source of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the oceans. Research has shown that PPM carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has historically followed temperature rather than caused it and the PPM carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been much higher in the past. In the near future technological advances will allow us to economically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Not a single disaster predicted by climate alarmists has occurred. No islands or coastlines have flooded; Arctic and Antarctic ice are still there; polar bears are increasing in number; and Earth’s temperature appears to be stabilizing. Let’s continue to encourage technological advances without the false hype that a carbon tax is needed to solve an undocumented problem.
Larry Kirkland
Moscow
Readers deserve better
I recognize the importance of probing the viewpoints of others and not solely seeking information or opinions confirming our current understandings. Thus, although I often differ from Scotty Anderson’s conclusions, I still look forward to his writings in the Daily News weekend opinion piece. But Scotty, you disappoint us with your Jan. 9 column.
In the first half of that column, your arguments are consistent with your title and you present a much different perspective than mine of what transpired at the nation’s capitol last week. But I recognize you have an arguable point: the summer’s Black Lives Matter protests too often were fraught with violence and destruction.
But in the last third of your piece you fail us. Without evidence you point the finger at antifa for their role in the riot/protest at the Capitol. The Washington Times (http://bit.ly/3i7q6ib) indicates the FBI found no evidence that supporters of the antifa movement were involved.
Moreover, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin also stated that there is no evidence antifa was involved in the riot/protest. My web search indicated that several other news organizations supported the Washington Times article.
So Scotty, what evidence do you have that indicates the role of antifa? You state to the effect that antifa is always involved as agitators in Trump rallies and that you saw from clips or pictures some suspiciously looking antifa folk at the riot/protest. These are not evidential findings, these are weak assumptions. You mislead the reader, you deviate from your initial thrust of the article and without evidence you then argue that Trump supporters are not the only ones to blame for rioting at the Capitol.
Your readers deserve much better, Scotty. I look forward to better journalism from you going forward.
Larry Fox
Pullman
Trump proved no voter fraud
In a recent letter to the editor, Ruth Butler asked why Joe Biden and Kamala Harris aren’t actively proving the election was valid. There are quite a few things wrong with the question considering they have nothing to do with the independent election systems of 50 different states where state laws guide the establishment and verification of elections.
That said, Trump and his campaign proved it was valid themselves. They proved it several times — in multiple lawsuits dismissed by courts all over the country, and not just dismissed, but drop-kicked by many of the judges, many of them Republican and several appointed by the Trump administration.
They proved it by demanding (in a few cases paying for) recounts, hand counts and signature verification. In every case, there were next to no votes changed (But a couple of dead people voted for Trump!). They proved it by bashing the Republican governor and secretary of state in Georgia to the point they publicly addressed all the fake news allegations circulating on social media, point by point.
Proof also resides in the fact that the lawsuits they brought did not even mention the word “fraud” because they knew that it is against the law to allege things in a lawsuit without any evidence to back it up. Think about that: they didn’t even allege “fraud” in lawsuits, but Trump lied over and over by claiming “fraud” in his public statements (good thing for Trump that it isn’t against the law to lie to you and me).
Just curious, Ruth, have you also wondered why Trump hasn’t been actively proving that he hasn’t cheated on his taxes, didn’t obstruct the Mueller investigation, violate campaign finance laws by paying off a porn star, or assault any of the dozens of women that have accused him of it?
Lorie Higgins
Moscow
Had to laugh
Again, I had to laugh at Scotty Anderson. He put the far left leading the far right against the Capitol. I really don’t think these people help each other. I don’t agree with either one of these groups, as that is what’s the matter with our country.
Brent Bohman
Troy
The kinds of ‘conservatives’
There are now three kinds of “conservatives.” There are the ones who actively attack our Constitution and democracy. Brad Little, Russ Fulcher, Mike Simpson, Janice McGeachen, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch all signed on to a lawsuit saying Texas had the right to throw out tens of millions of votes in other states. Fulcher voted to throw out votes even after a capital policeman was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher in the attack on congress. There is the legislative leadership who reacted to an armed mob breaking into the Idaho Capitol by offering them a chair.
Then there are the ones who ignore their oaths to defend the Constitution and remain silent. Representatives Caroline Troy and Brandon Mitchell are prime examples: not a peep after the biggest assault on the constitution since the civil war.
And last, there are the vanishingly rare conservatives who still have some ethics and morality. Mitt Romney and Laurence Wasden stood up for our democracy. Time to decide. What kind of conservative are you?
Kurt Obermayr
Winslow, Ariz.
