by Bonnie Glasser, Stevensville
In response to the October 5 letter from John Schneeberger, I find it interesting that he begins by stating that rapid climate change is difficult to tackle with politics yet ends by advocating government action and voting Democrat as the only solutions.
The 1972 Stockholm earth summit, followed by the UN climate talks from 1992 through 2021, resulted in few sustainable solutions. This November the 27th COP or Convention of Parties will be held in Egypt. It is called COP 27 because this is the 27th year they’ve been meeting. This UN Climate Change Conference has spanned the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.
So in 50 years we’ve determined that fossil fuels are consistent but dirty and that renewables are clean but weather dependent. Experts say that it is safer to re-explore clean nuclear energy as a solution. Bjorn Lomberg and Michael Shellenberger, climate and environmental experts, have touted nuclear energy as the only clean sustainable solution. Elon Musk and Bill Gates agree. Advances in nuclear energy indicate that it is far safer than its reputation implies.
In 2021, 61% of US electricity was generated from fossil fuels with renewables generating only 12.2%. Coal is the largest source of electricity globally. Coal power is estimated to kill around 350 times as many people per terawatt hour of energy produced, mostly from air pollution, compared to nuclear power. COP26 declared in 2021 goals to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. How is that possible without reliable sources of energy? It takes fossil fuels to reliably produce electricity in order to heat homes, manufacture goods and fertilizer and to transport necessities for living. The US is not compact like Europe and most people must own and drive a car in order to make a living.
The current climate change agenda and fossil fuels regulations are premature and destroying the economy, stealing billions from individuals’ 401(k)s and unfairly taxing US citizens through higher costs of most everything. How can the current administration justify the destruction of our entire economy without any solutions? Europe is now in a slow death spiral with rocketing energy costs the average citizen can’t afford all the while making Russia wealthy and stronger on the world stage while we gave up our energy independence. The citizens of Sri Lanka are starving due to their government banning fertilizers causing food prices to rise 80%.
This painfully complicated threat to our planet is real. For fifty years it has been politicized by activists thwarting any viable solutions like nuclear power.
Mr. Schneeberger’s statement that “Trump’s toxic politics of authoritarianism” is germane to the climate crisis is divisive and absurd in that a four-year administration could hardly have a significant influence in this fifty-year international puzzle. Mr. Schneeburger also writes that an “individual could not reduce their contribution to zero by stepping in front of a speeding bus.” I think an individual can make a difference by voting for candidates that research the issues and offer viable solutions.
John F Schneeberger says
Ms. Glasser would have you believe that there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties on trying to finds solutions to rapid climate change. Firstly, Republicans and their allies in petrochemical industry funded advocacy groups have, until a couple of years ago, denied any connection between rapid climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Trump and Trumpist Republicans office holders and candidates still do. The Republican party has stymied practically every effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, from fuel efficiency standards, to support for mass transportation, to even agreeing to the broad goals of the Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Note that the Paris accords did not mandate how each country meets those goals, including the nuclear options Ms. Glasser is fond of, but the GW Bush and Trump administrations bailed. They bailed because it wasn’t perfect, because it wasn’t hard enough on China and India, and other “what about” excuses favored by those that eschew responsibility and leadership. The best solution would be a carbon tax with a rebate to consumers but the Republicans were already condemning that (even as many of them supported it privately), so the Biden administration went for more subsidies, including to the nuclear power industry, but not a single Republican voted for it. A political party can not say that want to seriously address a crisis and offer no plan, no leadership, and demonstrate no political will, and that is the track record of the Republican party since the George H Bush administration, the last Republican President that was willing to act. If the Republican want a market-base solution that is long on nuclear power, why don’t they work with Democrats to craft one?
Kristin Hazlett says
Great comment for discussion and food for thought!
This is a rubic cube dilemma and I think the best place to start is to be more energy independent as a country and seriously consider nuclear power as a clean energy source. As far as wildfires are concerned, this is a huge problem and needs to be addressed on several fronts (deforestation, clean up, tree disease management etc not to mention more wild land professionally trained firefighters on the ground to help contain wildfires when they start) and should not only be funded by the federal government but by all individual states. We all benefit from our vast forests and should contribute to their sustainability, viability and safety. We all have the same goals in mind regarding the preservation of our beautiful planet, so it’s time to elect politicians who are open to all possibilities and finding sustainable earth and people friendly solutions instead of pointing fingers and offering nothing constructive or positive to find any solutions. Bottom line: Stay positive and keep trying – or move aside so someone else who has that mindset can come forward and work on solutions.
Joe says
Bonnie,
We agree .
Joseph and Mary…
Jersey Joe
VOTE REPUBLICAN
Craig says
The climate alarmists are more interested in controlling the individual than in real solutions.
Just two week ago the LA Times published an article stating the wildfires of
2022 put so much carbon in the air it has completely wiped out twenty plus years of climate activism.
In summation, climate activism is a failure. Does anyone on the left acknowledge this? Not many, instead they try to justify while calling for more restrictions.
I
Gomez says
“Just two week ago the LA Times published an article stating the wildfires of
2022 put so much carbon in the air it has completely wiped out twenty plus years of climate activism.”
What you’re not acknowledging is the snowball effect of climate change. We are getting hotter, larger and more frequent forest fires due to climate change. The carbon immitted by them does detract from attempts to slow it down, but one chases after the other like a dog chasing it’s tail. If we do not at least attempt to slow things down, we’ll only get more fires and more carbon in the air. I mean, if you just want to say “Fuck it, we’re at the point of no return anyway…”, OK, fine, just say that then. But don’t act like the two things aren’t connected.
Mary Sommers says
Well stated Bonnie. We need more critical thinkers to solve issues. Thanks for submitting