In Response
Dear Editor: Re: Thursday, March 9, “EPA Chief Questions Climate Change Science”
To many of us it is troubling to read that the new head of our Environmental Protection Agency disagrees with the overwhelming consensus of scientists studying climate change. What interests are served by the appointment of such an individual?
We can be uncertain about the degree to which the human use of fossil fuels contribute to observed climate shift. But to deny the significant human role, contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus, is irresponsible and reckless.
The risks in avoiding action are enormous. Consequences we have already have begun to see. Ocean acidification disrupting marine ecosystems, rising sea levels, more extreme weather pounding our shores and fishing fleets, and myriad other global consequences both known and unknown.
Additionally, a reduction in the combustion of fossil fuels does NOT equate to a reduction in economic activity. In fact, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by placing a price on carbon will bring to bear market forces that can stimulate innovation, jobs, and economic activity.
Many prominent conservative leaders, military/security analysts, and business interests recognize the need to place a price on carbon. A recent proposal put forward by imminent conservative republican leaders (Climate Leadership Council) in in their Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends deserves our attention. Pillars of this conservative proposal for action differ in only minor ways from an action proposal endorsed by the Citizen’s Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan advocacy group working for national legislative action on climate change.
We encourage everyone to learn more about these fee and dividend proposals that seek to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses AND support our economy.
Kent Barkhau, Michelle Putz, Sitka
AP Story Response
Dear Editor: Reference: ‘‘Study: Fewer Overweight Americans Trying to Lose,’’ AP March 7, 2017.
This is a sad story of overweight Americans accepting their condition even as the statistics include more people among the ranks of the overweight. The science, nutrition and health practitioners have failed to understand or explain the problem and cannot connect the dots to the massive changes that have occurred to our diets in recent decades.
United Nations (World Health Organization) refers to this as a world crisis. Scientific American in a February 2017 article refers to it as a pandemic. Neither offers a solution or recognizes that it is a symptom of a bad diet. My own take on it is that it is an unnecessary problem caused by our failure to understand how our bodily machinery works. To understand our limitations consider that all life forms have a relationship to and a genetic memory of our natural food. Only that food is acceptable to us and allows us to control our hunger our size and our weight. There are about 5,000 species of mammals in the world. Only one specie get the food choice wrong, and is the one suffering from obesity.
Biologists refer to us as only slightly less carnivorous than wolves. Our place in the food chain is to feast on meats, fish and fats and very little else, though most of us have adapted to dairy product since farming began. The carbohydrates, sugar-based nutrients, that has become universally adopted in the world is not our food and can only lead to obesity and malnutrition.
For more on this subject refer to my book, ‘‘Basic Food, A Theory of Nutrition,’’ Xlibres, 2012, 52 pages.
Harold Kalve, Sitka
Letter Response
Dear Editor: Could Sitka, Alaska, become a zero-emissions community by about 2027?
Last Friday’s letter “Dam Response” mentions the increase in Sitka’s electric capacity, and raises an interesting question. Could Sitka rely entirely on renewable hydropower for its transportation and home heating needs, and is this feasible within the next 10 years or so?
Let’s look at a few numbers needed to explore this question. According to the Sitka Electric Department data, the recent Blue Lake expansion has added close to 35 billion watt-hours per year (hereafter “energy units”) to our electric capacity. Of this 35 energy units, about 7 units could in theory be used to power up to 5,000 electric vehicles, assuming 3 miles per kilowatt hour and 4,000 miles per year. And when considering electrical energy for home heating, roughly 18 of the 35 energy units could in theory be used to convert 2,000 homes to either electrically sourced heat pumps or base-board heating. Even more homes could be converted to renewable wood heat. This would leave roughly 10 energy units for Sitka’s future economic growth and other contingencies – still a lot of energy!
Although this simplified analysis leaves many questions unanswered, it’s clear that our new source of electricity from Blue Lake could go a long way towards converting Sitka to a model “green community” that is largely free of fossil fuels and resulting CO2 emissions. Sitka could become an international leader for other communities to admire and emulate. Isn’t it worth striving towards this goal, even if it’s not immediately attainable?
Globally we still emit more than 30 billion tons of CO2 annually with no end in sight for the sharp reductions needed to stem climate change. In response, countries like Norway and the Netherlands are moving quickly to encourage electric vehicles, including a policy of 100 percent of new car sales by 2025. So why can’t something similar happen in Sitka? We know that very good quality electric vehicles are available in the $8,000 price range. What if additional tax credits or other policy measures could reduce this price even further? Electric vehicles could become far and away the least-cost form of transportation. Likewise, financial incentives could be provided to Sitka residents who wish to heat their homes with electricity.
An all-renewable scenario for Sitka’s transportation and home heating could reduce CO2 emissions by thousands of tons each year – amazing! Taking swift strides towards this goal is a very worthy and realistic endeavor that should be pursued vigorously.
Dave Nicholls, Sitka
Less than 1 Percent
Dear Editor: There’s talk from the White House about slashing foreign aid in our national budget. U.S. foreign aid, less than 1% of the budget, helps support lower-income countries to save millions of lives, increase access to education, and put a dent in poverty. If the proposed cuts aren’t stopped, it would not just stall progress, but reverse it. This small investment helps to stabilize countries, provide people with dignity to be self-sufficient, and keeps the world safer.
It’s been said that the national budget is a moral document, reflecting our values and priorities. Gutting anti-poverty programs would mean more young girls never see the inside of a classroom. More children go without vaccines that could save their lives. More people die of treatable diseases like tuberculosis. We hope we can count on Senator Murkowski, Senator Sullivan and Representative Young to protect and expand funding for global anti-poverty programs. We believe our country is at its best when we make sure everyone has the foundation for a bright future.
Sitka RESULTS
Michele Friedman, Nancy Knapp,
Krisanne Rice, Carolyn Servid,
Kathy Kyle, Mim McConnell,
Mary Soltis, Kim Kirkness,
Brenda Campen, Ann Walter,
Patty and Scott Harris,
Deb Brushafer
Thanks, Pizza Express
Dear Editor: Baranof Elementary School would like to thank Pizza Express for their generous support of the school. On March 8, hundreds of students, families, staff and community members ate a delicious dinner and Pizza Express generously donated a portion of all the sales to the school. This money will go to support classroom field trips, the Iditaread program and the free book giveaway. Baranof Elementary School would also like to thank the community members who came to eat and support our school. Thank you!
Baranof Elementary School
