Dear Editor,
I agree with Bill Calfee; climate change or global warming should not be a left vs. right issue. I pointed out that there are other facts to the subject. I could have included more facts but solving climate change wasn't my goal even if it was a possibility. Mr. Calfee also pointed out other facts but by far still not all of them. My point not understood by Mr. Calfee is the liberal lefts are stuck on a limited amount of facts which they use to push their liberal agenda, anti-fossil fuels. Because of this, it becomes a left vs. right issue, a fiction vs. fact issue. I wouldn't address this political issue if it wasn't being pushed hard by the liberal left and this administration in newspapers and television. To ignore the issue gives free reign to advance a false narrative upon the unknowing or un-engaged. If a lie is repeated enough, without correcting truths, it will then through perception, not facts, be seen as the truth.
To correct the problem of global warming or climate change (if either is not natural) you have to understand the cause or causes. When you create a math equation and you don't include all the statistics then the answer from the equation will be incorrect even though it may support your view. To devastate our economy or spend trillions on flawed science because all the facts are not taken into account will not correct the problem if it is not the problem. The Middle East has a large oil supply, fossil fuel. For those fossil fuels to be there the region had to have animal life and vegetation in very large amounts. Today the region is a desert and has been for at least a few thousand years. What happened, it wasn't caused by man. Climate Change most likely which is a normal aspect of the evolution of the planet. Am I promoting more pollution? Absolutely not. Am I stating that the liberal left's agenda is flawed? Absolutely. Do we need to seek the truth? Absolutely. Will we get the truth from the liberal left? Absolutely not.
Our liberal left President just signed a 30 year moratorium that allows this to continue and not be corrected because of the expense to the investors (many liberal left) in doing so. It sounds hypocritical to me. Even our fans in our homes have a protective casing mandated by government to protect the unknowing. Solar farms absorb heat into hazardous chemicals to generate power but they also generate higher heat to the surrounding environment and I am totally sure those chemicals will never leak from the circulation tubes into the environment. So even these types of energy producing devices have down falls but you won't hear that from the liberal left. The truth and the liberal left are rarely seen holding hands.
We as a civilization have given the world (China & India included, not doing so is a choice) the means to burn fuels emitting less pollutants all done by private enterprise through reasonable government mandates to do so for the future. Are we where we want to be in doing so? No. Are we striving to get there? Yes, if allowed to do so by government. To totally kill cost effective energy in this country will come at a cost to the people and country. Cost effective energy is always the goal with minimum or no pollutants. Am I anti-energy of any type? No. Am I pro-cheap energy? Absolutely; cheap energy built this nation and it will not return to prosperity without it. Energy to power your car, home, factory, business, farm, etc. does civilization no good if only the rich can afford it while the rest can't even burn wood for warmth or cooking because of the pollutants created by fire.
Steven M. King
Milton
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Energy only rich can afford does no good