This reader is relieved to find out that air pollution and therefore climate change doesn’t exist beyond 50 nautical miles [”New EPA emission standards would hurt short-sea shipping”, Opinion, March 3]. All this talk of biological interdependence that connects us and all other life in an ecological web must be overzealous science. The old way, out-of-sight…More
The Seattle Times’ recent editorial “No sewage discharge marine zones is good policy” [Opinion, Feb. 28] misses the point. There is no science that demonstrates how this very minimal amount of treated discharge would have any appreciable impact on the environment. What this ban would do is create yet another unnecessary, costly and hard-to-enforce…More
The Times’ article about citizens’ issues with developers in Snohomish County came as no surprise to me [“Bog a battlefield for developer, neighbor in Snohomish County,” Local News, Feb. 10]. And to read the article it seemed like bureaucratic bungling of the worst kind.
Then I looked up the place on Google Earth and a different story emerged: a tiny gem of a place surrounded by mansions.More
The Olympic National Forest Wilderness expansion article was a necessary inspiration for nature-loving Washingtonians [“Bill would expand wilderness area at Olympic National Forest,” Local News, Jan. 21]. Saving 126,554 acres of the Olympic National Forest from logging, mining and damming is crucial to sustain the purity of drinking water and is essential to forest…More
No need to remove dams, the plan is working The federal Columbia River salmon restoration plan criticized in “Water over dams saves salmon” [Opinion, Jan. 27] is neither “vague” nor “mushy” — unlike the ill-informed Seattle Times editorial that panned it. In fact, the plan is the largest and most expensive wildlife restoration effort in…More
The article “Bothell acquires more land to preserve” [NWFriday, Jan. 3] was a good primer on the issues facing conservation in North Creek Forest.
The true community value of Bothell’s last urban forest is that it’s within walking distance of more than 9,000 people, from kindergartners to doctorate candidates.
We are depleting a finite resource
Whatever the conventionally measured benefits of building more pipelines to distribute a dwindling and more remote amount of oil or bitumen, the costs of continued global warming are colossal [“New high-tech maps detail wildlife habitat in West,” Online, Dec. 13].
Profiting from perhaps a few more decades of depletion of oil and tar sands may not be very advantageous if the global biosphere is wrecked when the anticipated profits are fully counted.
Putting more gas in your car when the biosphere is spiraling downward is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Politicians, glaciers, and the tortoise and the hare
As The Times reminded us last week, the gradual disappearance of Arctic sea ice is being driven by anthropogenic climate change, which is also contributing to the increased likelihood of wildfires and a host of devastating effects linked to climate change [“Report links extreme weather, melting of Arctic sea,” News, Dec. 13].
Meanwhile, back home in Washington, it seems as if glaciers are moving faster than our politicians as our state’s climate panel led by Gov. Jay Inslee has been unable to progress on implementing climate policy. The process to develop legislation to deal with climate change, which began five years ago, has come to a deadlock as Republicans refuse to take on policy citing cilmate change’s potential impacts on the economy.
Those not concerned about the dangers of nuclear waste need to weigh the threats
I fully agree with the views expressed by Sid Morrison and K.C. Golden [“Decarbonizing our future,” Opinion, Dec. 16].
I believe discussion of nuclear power needs to be broadened. I recently learned that a large part of the nuclear fuel used in this country comes from enriched uranium and plutonium salvaged from nuclear weapons dismantled by Russia and sold to the U.S. as part of a nuclear-arms reduction agreement. Interestingly, there is concern that the cost of nuclear power will soon increase because that source is running out. I regard this as good news in that it represents a reduction in the nuclear weapons threat.
Those of us who are concerned about the dangers of nuclear waste need to seriously weigh the relative threats. Which threat is worse: weapons grade nuclear material or spent fuel?
Choose a safe alternative with more assets than liabilities
I do not understand these foolish drives for free, sustainable power that, if truly evaluated, do not realize our perceived reality, and are actually damaging [“U.S. to give wind farms 30-year pass to kill eagles,” page one, Dec. 7].
Wind power is killing birds (and destroying the beauty of our open spaces). If it were not for the benevolence of taxpayers and rate-payers providing subsidies, it would cease to exist.
Solar power also invalidates the beauty our landscapes and again would not exist if not for the charity of the taxpayer (see: Solyndra). A search for the effectiveness of corn-ethanol fuels provides mainly pro and con rhetoric and opinion with little scientific data — apart from supposedly raising food prices and potentially damaging engines not designed to run on a high-ethanol-content fuel. And though electric vehicles are clean running, how much coal must we burn to produce the needed electricity?