Energy council should stave off dirty coal

Coal in the Northwest is on its way out.

Most of the Northwest's new energy needs -- 85 percent -- can be met simply with energy conservation, according to a new report released Aug. 11 by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). This is very encouraging because the NPCC guides most of our region's energy policy.

This offers the Northwest the alluring ability to affordably and safely expand our own regional energy base. We, as citizens, homeowners and consumers, can implement energy-conservation measures immediately. Individuals can save money on their energy bills. New green jobs must be created to deal with the conservation need. This will also wean us off the dirty coal energy that embarrassingly makes up a fifth of our energy.

Unfortunately, the council has delayed full release of its findings until all the members from different states reach agreement. I urge Washington-state members to stay committed to a clean-energy future.

-- Thea Reinert, Seattle

Coal should stay out of energy plans

On Aug. 12, you reported ["Power-plan draft relies heavily on conservation," NWWeekend] that 85 percent of our region's new energy needs could be met by energy conservation, according to a new power plan being developed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

What the economists and energy experts on this council have determined is that we have the opportunity to safely and affordably replace the region's need for coal power within the next decade by investing in safer alternatives to coal and using our energy more efficiently. This will save consumers money because we will be able to power our homes using less energy, and it will create thousands of clean energy jobs to revitalize our economy. This will also improve the health of our communities and environment by ending our dependence on dirty coal power, which currently makes up about a fifth of our region's energy usage.

Now the power council has announced that they are delaying the release of their plan as members from other states are unable to agree on all the details. I encourage the Washington members of the council to stay strong and to keep on working for a strong road map to a bright future powered by clean and healthy energy.

-- Ethan Bergerson, Seattle

Following energy status quo will lead to catastrophe

Thank you for the article ["Carbon capture key to clean coal," Business, Aug. 16] on the obstacles confronting the coal industry as it tries to control carbon dioxide emissions with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).

If we've learned anything from our foray into nuclear power, it is that long-term storage of hazardous waste is something that is easy to talk about but almost impossible to implement.

The technological difficulties, costs and absence of logic surrounding CCS defy explanation. The article failed to mention two other detrimental components of coal-generated electricity: the destruction of mountain tops and streams to extract the coal from the ground in the first place and the disposal problem associated with the poisonous ash residue left after the coal has burned.

How many solar plants, wind farms, geothermal facilities and conservation measures could we afford instead?

The coal industry and its lobbyists will try to convince us that alternative energy cannot possibly substitute for coal. As the recent economic collapse illustrates, however, that kind of blind and arrogant disregard for anything but the status quo will only lead to catastrophe.

The sooner we transform our energy dependence away from fossil fuels the sooner we will begin building an economic and ecologically sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

-- Mark Quinn, Olympia

Climate legislation doesn't have watchdogs' support

Recently, a bill called the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives. This piece of legislation promises, if it passes the Senate, to create a booming clean-energy economy, and a safer, healthier economy in the process.

Not so fast. Truth be told, the ACES bill has some things up its sleeve. According to Friends of the Earth, it goes easy on egregious emissions offenders, big oil and dirty coal. Another respected environmental watchdog, the Sierra Club, points out that the bill was written in part by uberpolluters Shell and Duke Energy. And lastly, Greenpeace refused to lend its support as well.

I hope folks send a clear message to their senators that this flawed document needs some serious overhauling before signing into law. The Earth is already exploited and exhausted enough resource-wise, and besides, what kind of legacy do we want to leave our children and grandchildren?

I just wish that those with fossil-fuel concerns see past the short-term and realize the huge profits they stand to reap if they go green.

-- Aaron Hunt Warner, Seattle

Looking for leadership from senators on energy bill

President Obama's call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year was answered recently by the U.S. House of Representatives passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The legislation will establish a new energy policy that reduces dependence on foreign oil and builds a domestic clean technology manufacturing base to supply wind, solar and other renewable energy. The bill also takes significant steps toward solving the global-warming crisis by limiting carbon pollution.

I applaud Congressmen Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen, Jim McDermott, Dave Reichert and Adam Smith for voting yes.

But the battle is far from over as the Senate now begins working on this bill. I look forward to Sen. Patty Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell providing real leadership to ensure passage. Strengthening this legislation as it moves through the Senate is essential to meeting its potential to jump-start the American economy. Specifically, the Senate should strengthen key provisions related to the Renewable Electricity Standard, investments in clean energy, energy efficiency and training and fair treatment for our workers.

Sens. Murray and Cantwell need to stand up to big oil and coal industries and set America on the path to a clean energy future.

-- Joelle Robinson, Seattle

Climate-change reports along with alien abductions

Mary L. Schapiro, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wants corporations to report climate-change impacts on their quarterly and annual reports. I think that is a great idea as long as the following similar items are also included in this new reporting requirement:

• Alien abductions: If any corporate officer has been abducted by aliens and brain scanned that should be reported in detail.

• Psychic brain storms by corporate management resulting in business and revenue losses.

• Haunting and evil spirit intervention in corporate profits.

• A complete report of all tarot card business-fortune forecasts in order to prevent insider trading.

-- Bob Clark, Monroe

Carbon rhetoric used to frighten public

What are "carbon tax" and "carbon emissions" in the piece by Bruce Flory and Todd Myers ["Replace property tax with a carbon tax," Opinion, guest column, June 29]? Are they concerned about soot emissions (i.e. structureless carbon, a pollutant), graphite or diamonds? These are examples of carbon. Maybe throwing a graphite pencil into the air should be part of Washington's carbon tax?

What Flory and Myers mean are "carbon dioxide taxes" and "carbon dioxide emissions."
This is not merely an academic point but is part of the way the language of the debate is distorted to bolster concerns about possible human-caused climate change. Ignoring oxygen atoms and calling carbon dioxide "carbon" is like ignoring the oxygen in water and calling it hydrogen.

Most of the public would regard such a communication trick as ridiculous. Imagine getting a hydrogen tax bill, only to be told later that it was a water tax.

Such deceptions do serve a purpose, however: to frighten the public into CO2 cuts. Using such phrases as "harmful carbon emissions" encourages people to think of the gas as dirty, like graphite or soot. Referring to CO2 by its proper name only would help people remember that it is an invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis and all life as well.

-- Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition executive director, Ottawa, Ontario

Private companies are better guardians of ocean

A recent guest column ["The great groundfish grab," Opinion, July 4] attacking the Pacific Fishery Management Council's proposal to privatize the trawl sector of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery exemplifies the larger philosophical battle over whether government ownership or private ownership best protects natural resources.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, private ownership invariably does the better job. A resource that is owned by everyone is actually owned by no one, leading to the tragedy of the commons -- when everyone tries to use as much of the resource as they can, even when it is clear that this is not in anyone's long-term interest.

The result is that government lands are typically not as well-managed as private lands. Private owners are far and away the best stewards. Where a fishing industry owns the fishery, they have a strong incentive to sustain and restore it.

Granted, this runs contrary to the historic tradition of open access to the ocean's resources, but where regulatory approaches are continually failing to preserve a fishery, privatization may well prove to be the only sustainable solution.

-- Bob Benze, Silverdale

No wonder global warming is often regarded as myth

After reading the article, "Warming may impede eelgrass growth" [NWFriday, July 3], I can see why many people think global warming is questionable. After that eye-catching headline, the article states "The good news is that overall in Puget Sound, eelgrass isn't declining year to year."

Then Jeff Gaeckle is quoted saying, "It's hard to pinpoint what's causing the changes." The article explains, "Scientists suspect development, polluted runoff, commercial fishing and now changes in climate as possible reasons."

Give me a break -- make up your minds!

-- Bob Lalande, Tacoma

Puget Sound poised to reap benefits of climate bill

Rep. Dave Reichert showed great leadership by moving Washington and the nation toward a clean-energy future with the passing of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House.

Energy independence and conservation transcend politics. This bill will protect our environment, strengthen our economy by creating more than 30,000 jobs in our state and help make America a world leader in energy-efficient technology. And, as a leader in clean-energy innovations, the Puget Sound region is uniquely positioned to greatly benefit from this historic legislation.

As the bill moves to the Senate later this year, we will need equal leadership to pass legislation that reduces dangerous carbon pollution and invests in a clean, prosperous future. Conservation and economic growth go hand in hand. Passing this bill into law will preserve our environment, create jobs and is a critical investment in a brighter future for our children.

-- Bob Freimark, Wilderness Society senior policy analyst, Seattle

No new nuclear -- we're still cleaning up the first mess

Sid Morrison's guest column ["Nuclear power could be part of the solution," Opinion, July 1] was a smooth but arrogant dismissal of the choice America has already made about expanding nuclear energy.

Americans don't trust nuclear, economically or environmentally. We're still paying for the Washington Public Power Supply financial disaster and people are still dying in Belarus, the Ukraine, Russia and parts of Europe from the Chernobyl meltdown.

Citizens need to know that even after 65 years, there still isn't a long-term solution to disposing of hazardous nuclear waste. Nuclear plants cost $6 billion to $8 billion and can take 15 to 20 years to construct to produce electricity that costs 60 percent more than electricity generated from coal.

Add in the full costs for nuclear-waste disposal, decommissioning and insuring the plants against meltdown and terrorists attacks and it is simply not economical. Hanford nuclear reservation, in our own backyard, is the most contaminated nuclear site in the world, excluding Chernobyl, and cleanup is eight years behind schedule and projected to cost $50 billion, 20 times the original estimate. When all costs are considered, nuclear energy remains the most expensive and dangerous way to generate electricity.
Morrison talks about the need for citizens to be informed and on that, he is absolutely correct

-- Mark Quinn, Olympia

Nuclear power is great, except for one minor problem

Sid Morrison's guest column on nuclear power did a great job of extolling the benefits and need for nuclear power. I think we should get right on it -- er, that is, after we deal with that pesky business of it producing prodigious amounts of deadly waste that last for a zillion years and cannot be disposed of safely.

-- Harold R. Pettus, Everett

Would you store nuclear waste in your backyard?

I have some questions for Sid Morrison after reading his column promoting the use of more nuclear power in Washington.

First, you say we need nuclear power because we can't "conserve our way out of the need for more power to meet future demands." In 2002, the Tellus Institute released a study showing that the Northwest can meet all of its growing need for electricity by increasing energy efficiency and investing in new sources of renewable power generation. What evidence do you have to back up your position?

Second, you describe "tired attempts to link commercial nuclear power to vastly overblown cost and risk factors." Does Whoops, the joint venture of 23 publicly-owned utilities, ring a bell? Have you been to the Hanford nuclear reservation lately?

Third, if you think nuclear waste is not a problem, can we store it in your backyard?

-- Robert Pregulman, Seattle

Plenty of scientists don't fall for global-warming myth

Editor, The Times:

Paul Krugman ["Climate-change deniers commit treason against planet," Opinion, syndicated columnist, June 30] asks the question, "How can anyone justify failing to act?"
He does not mention that earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of carbon dioxide.

There are more than 700 scientists who disagree with the United Nations -- 13 times the number who wrote the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a doctorate in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.

Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental-physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.

How long will The Seattle Times continue to repeat the tired mantras of global-warming believers?

While there can be no justification for opposing conservation or alternate sources of energy, there are considerable current climate and atmospheric science reasons for opposing the fraud of cap-and-trade legislation.

-- Steven Keeler, Seattle

Krugman needn't name-call to prove point

Paul Krugman lost my respect when he resorted to name-calling to discredit his opponents as well as characterize Rep. Paul Broun's statement, which, unfortunately, used "global warming" as shorthand for "man's contribution to global warming."

Krugman is obviously trying to escalate national emotion in support of the hyperbolic efforts of Al Gore ahead of a worldwide trend in rethinking man's influence on global warming, a growing movement among scientists late in being recognized here in the U.S.
The current debate can only be about mankind's contribution to global warming because beyond this mankind is only an observer.

A rising trend in scientific thought worldwide as described in Kimberly A. Strassel's June 26 opinion article in The Wall Street Journal is commended for your critical reading. Contrary to Krugman pronouncements, she states within one internal paragraph, "The collapse of the 'consensus' has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of CO2. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."

Thank our Founding Fathers for giving us senators!

-- Jared D. Mayes, North Bend

Volunteerism, not green products, needed

If someone truly denies the Earth's climate is changing, I agree with Paul Krugman that they are scientifically wrong. However, most of those who are in dispute with the pro-climate-change studies are not in denial. It is the reason for the change they are arguing against.

It is scientifically beyond our power to have any real capability to stop some warming or climate change. To think so is egotistical. As inhabitants, we can help ourselves only by not helping the inevitable.

There is more to climate-change theory than just the scientific phenomena. It is man's greed to profit from climate-change claims. The business world and marketplace capitalism has taken advantage of fear by providing us with green products and organic growth. Selling us on their world-saving products will do little to stop climate change if not cause its intensity to increase.

If businesses are really interested in saving the planet, volunteerism is by far more effective. Recycling, renewable energy and replacement of the automobile with mass-transportation methods are more effective than dumping green products on the marketplace. This volunteerism has been going on for some time with little credit given to those who participate.

One way to look at climate change is by examining Earth's development. The Earth has gone from ice age to warming many times in the past without man's interference, and it will do the same with man's interference.

-- Jim Morris, Renton

Green manufacturers do have earth's best interests at heart

I was deeply offended by Tom Watson's assertion in the EcoConsumer column ["Don't be alarmed, but do be wary of some chemicals," YourSaturday, June 20] that "activist environmental groups may stoke consumer fears as a way to increase their own financial support."

By this logic, the American Lung Association would wish to see an increase in the number of asthma deaths from air pollution and Washington Toxins Coalition would want to see higher amounts of toxins and pesticide levels found in human subjects in order to "stoke consumer's fears" to increase their financial support.

This is a ludicrous assumption and a smear on the good work done by these organizations that act as watchdogs for the health of Washington state residents. Your apology to them is overdue.

-- D.J. Guth, Kirkland

Life with cap-and-trade means economy will sink

Have you tried to imagine life in the event cap-and-trade becomes law ["Dealmaking climate passes emissions bill," Close Up, July 1]?

The cost of American goods and services will skyrocket, pushing us all into buying even more Chinese products of dubious value. U.S. exports will plummet, being overpriced. Gasoline prices will erupt, heading to $7 per gallon.

This is all because the dollar will lose enormous value as deficit spending continues and domestic drilling becomes politically incorrect. For lower and middle-income citizens, already struggling to make ends meet, the struggle becomes nearly futile. Discontent will grow as President Obama's heralded tax cuts prove to be nominal at best.

In the midst of our torment, politicians will try to convince us that cap-and-trade will work. But there is no way of measuring its success or failure. What index would we consult? What shaman would we call in?

Obama is in way over his head on this one. And what is the rush to pass this legislation in the midst of so many other woes anyway?

-- J. Timothy Hobbs, Enumclaw

Waxman-Markey bill would bring rising costs to homeowners

This Waxman-Markey bill claims to go after big energy consumers and polluters, but it will ultimately place the burden on consumers resulting in higher prices across the board. Low-income and middle-class working Americans will be adversely affected by this legislation as they see steep price increases in filling their gas tanks, heating their homes and buying groceries.

In addition, this bill forces all homeowners to pay for a government-rated test before selling a home. The test must pass government regulations in order for the homeowner to sell its home. If the home does not pass the test, the homeowner must fix any and all issues to comply with the test.

Clearly, this would be a huge burden and cost for the homeowner. The cap-and-trade bill will not protect our environment as it is represented.

Wake up America and see the government reaching into your wallets once again!

-- Marikay Cuthill, Bellevue

Rising energy costs will bring more unemployment

As a recent graduate from college, the prospects of an ailing economy, a broken health-care system and the growing threat of climate change not only trouble me but many like myself who are beginning a new chapter in their lives. We slowly feel as if the road ahead is not only bumpy but is congested with problems developed through an overreaching and infringing government body.

This time last summer, we saw oil and gas prices reach record highs. Homeowners across the state saw much of their income being siphoned away from their everyday needs so they could fill up their gas tank.

Companies saw rising costs as transportation and delivery expenses soared. The money that went to pay this energy bill could have easily been used to fill the pockets of workers enhancing growth in consumer spending -- a driving force of economic prosperity -- but it didn't.

The U.S. House has passed another troublesome bill that not only threatens the growth of the economy but job security for low-income and middle-class workers across the nation. With HB 2454, Congress hopes to again go after the wallet of Americans in the name of climate change; effectively taxing both families and companies for their energy use without regard for the effects on families around the country.

Last summer, companies sent workers home because they could not afford the costs of labor due to soaring energy costs. If our senators want to truly stand up for those who need it most, if they want to show empathy to those who have the chips stacked against them, I urge them to vote against this bill.

It will only help give us the feared 10 percent unemployment rate. Washington voters asked for change. By change, we did not mean from employed to unemployed.

-- Michael F. Sherman, Seattle

New bill chance to make amends for Kyoto

The Waxman-Markey Bill ["House GOP bill emphasizes nuclear power," News, June 10] is the most comprehensive and progressive piece of environmental legislation that many Americans have seen in their lifetime. In order to restore our position as a world leader, the U.S. must take strong and decisive action to tackle global climate change.

America must be an example to China, India and Eastern Europe, implementing strategic guidelines for emission caps and reductions. Big Oil and Dirty Coal, with their Republican allies in Congress, are writing enormous checks to our representatives with our tax dollars to ensure progressive legislation like this dies in Congress.

It's time for Americans to demand the change promised last fall, and work together for a cleaner and better environmental future. We missed the boat on Kyoto; let's not make the same mistake again.

-- Kaitie Coghlan, Seattle

Endanger countless species of marine life

The only green aspect of utilities looking to place power-generation turbines in Puget Sound will be the color of money they hope to make at the expense of extinction of Puget Sound salmon, halibut and orca whales ["Tidal-energy project on course after tests," NW Wednesday, April 15].

Fishermen know that salmon and halibut inhabit the bottom 30 feet of the water column where utilities propose to install underwater turbines. These massive 30-foot-diameter turbines will decimate salmon and halibut, as well as the resident Puget Sound orca whales who feed on the salmon.

The unintended consequences of turbine-based underwater power generation will be on the magnitude of the decimation of the native salmon runs in our Northwest rivers caused by hydroelectric dams. The Bonneville Dam was erected in 1937 and was the first federal dam constructed on the Columbia. In less than 75 years, it and its sister dams have caused the near extinction of countless salmon and other species, leaving us spending hundred of millions of dollars yearly trying to replace them with weakened and genetically inferior hatchery strains. Admiralty Inlet is one of the few places left in Puget Sound that has a healthy underwater environment that is a critical habitat for Pacific halibut breeding.

Rockfish, lingcod, endangered nine-gill sharks and innumerable other species inhabit these waters as well. If these turbines are placed, the waters of Puget Sound will soon run red with the blood of these species.

There are current based-power generation technologies that do not require turbines that will be much less harmful to aquatic life. These include fishtail-like structures that sway in the current, rather than creating a wall of rapidly rotating sharp blades. These slowly swaying mechanisms could actually improve the underwater habitat by providing structure and shelter.

We should ban underwater turbines from the tidal waters of Puget Sound to protect our marine life.

-- Benjamin Hu, Coupeville

Inefficient fuel additive shouldn't be used at all

The problem with corn-based ethanol is that the option is still entertained at all ["Report: Ethanol raises cost of nutrition programs," seattletimes.com, Business & Technology, April 10].

Objective statistics have shown its detrimental effects on food supply: It diminishes availability and elevates cost. Empirical data has proved its inefficiency, showing it takes more ethanol to drive an equal distance possible on a gallon of gasoline, which also obliterates any environmental advantage.

Remaining proponents are simply those with a financial stake in the matter, indifferent to its vast failings and hardened to the multipronged malignancy affecting all, but in particular the poor. Greed's concern is only with itself, no matter the mask it hides behind.

-- Michael E. White, Brush Prairie

A costly gamble

Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, has put forth a $3 billion spending plan that is for "creating jobs by funding construction of safety, health, and energy-saving improvements to public facilities" ["House chair wants school bond vote," NW Saturday, April 4]. It would appear that Rep. Dunshee has gone to the casino with taxpayer money and put $3 billion on green.

He claims that the energy-efficiency savings will pay the debt for itself. The plan is also expected to create 90,000 jobs --create, save or how long will the jobs last? Rep. Dunshee is allowing history to repeat itself, just like his 2005 Green Schools Bill. He claimed then that using a "green" building standard would save 30 percent, but after four years there is no savings and actually more spending.

It is time for common-sense legislation and not poor decision-making with our money. Tell your representatives your opinion of this costly gamble and tell them not put all of your money on green.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Jackie Johnston, Associated Press

Wind turbines near Kittitas, Wash., are shown in this Dec. 8, 2006, file photo. As climate change looms larger in the nation's future energy plans, wind and other sources of alternative electrical power are getting a closer look.

A recession remedy: renewable energy with stable costs

Editor, The Times:

Leave it to The Times to make it seem like we can't afford to implement the voter-approved Initiative 937 in this time of economic hardship ["Bill would ease energy targets for state utilities," Local News, March 2]. Give me a break!

This is exactly the time we should be implementing it, since it calls for the creation of new jobs by investing in our communities to get our energy from renewable sources. Renewable-energy development would not raise energy rates here or in other states with renewable standards.

Stable costs are a hallmark of renewable energy because the fuel is free and domestic. Continuing to get our energy from hydropower or bringing in renewable energy from further away creates no jobs here.

Scaring people by skewing the facts seems to be the typical conservative approach to prevent any kind of positive change from happening.

-- Gayle Janzen, Seattle

SB 5840 nullifies progress toward a renewable-energy future

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, misses the big picture by supporting Senate Bill 5840 to roll back our Clean Energy Initiative ["We can be green and protect ratepayers," guest column, March 9].

First, we voted for I-937 to encourage investment in new, renewable energy sources made here in Washington state. Now, Brown wants to grandfather in existing hydropower, nullifying any progress 937 makes toward our renewable-energy future.

Naming an existing power source as a new project eliminates incentives for new investments and jobs in Washington state's emerging clean-energy sector. Our Senate majority leader should not abuse hydro to water down a popular initiative.

And more than compromising the public's initiative, Brown's SB 5840 shirks solutions to climate change and fossil-fuel dependence. Brown should be taking the lead to support I-937 and Gov. Christine Gregoire's legislation to cap and lower global-warming pollution.

These standards would earn Washington state investment and jobs, not to mention an important seat at the table crafting a national cap-and-trade program.

Future generations deserve Washington state's opportunity in the governor's cap-and-trade legislation.

Fresh out of college, I'm one of the millennial generation inheriting economic stagnation and a climate crisis, all of which I will have to pay for over time. At such a crossroads, we need true climate and economic leadership. Brown must not slash at both by diluting our Clean Energy Initiative and orphaning the governor's cap-and-trade legislation.

-- Bonnie Hemphill, Seattle

Free and local fuel to lower taxes and create jobs

When I read Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown's guest column on Initiative 937, the voter-backed people's initiative setting renewable-energy standards for our state, I was astonished. It was as if she hadn't read the legislation.

She calls for amendments to the law to make it more "flexible" to allow other forms of renewable energy, such as geothermal and wave energy, to meet the standards.

But I-937 already provides for these and other forms of renewable energy.

Worst of all, with no evidence whatsoever, Brown claims implementation of I-937 will burden ratepayers. She fails to account for subsidies to wind-and-solar energy, which exist in our state and nationally to make them competitive, or the 17 covered utilities, 16 of which have already met or exceeded their goals.

The fact is, renewable-energy development is not raising energy rates -- not here or in other states with renewable-energy standards. Renewable energy stabilizes costs because the "fuel" is free and local. And, thanks to I-937, the money being invested in communities across our state lowers taxes, creates jobs and puts Washington on the path to a secure energy future.

The people of Washington state, like people across the country, need government to create jobs. Renewable-energy development will create many family-wage jobs for our region. Moreover, the federal government's stimulus of renewable-energy development makes this the time to get more firmly on course to develop our abundant, renewable-energy potential in Washington, as opposed to getting off the train while it is leaving the station.

Allowing utilities to include existing hydropower and other resources does not create any new jobs. And allowing utilities to secure renewable energy in faraway places may create jobs in other states, but not Washington.

What is Brown thinking? Or, is she not thinking, but simply buying some misguided line from one stogie utility that simply does not appear to care what happens to the people of Washington state or our energy future?

-- Katherine Ransel, Seattle

Not the time to celebrate inheriting a network of dams

The intention of the Clean Energy Initiative, I-937, is not to pat ourselves on the back for inheriting a network of dams. It's about choosing to power the next round of growth in our region with clean energy and the jobs produced as a result.

This is why the hydroelectric provisions of Senate Bill 5840 are such a bad idea. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, writing in support of the bill, argues to meet our goal of 15 percent renewable energy by 2020, we should turn back the clock and count the electrical capacity we've already constructed.

The biggest challenge -- and opportunity -- of our era is to re-power our economy in a way that improves the quality of life. As it's now written, SB 5840 would leave us resting on our laurels during this critical moment.

-- Patrick McGrath, Seattle

Unjustly scapegoated when humans are the real problem

In Baja California you can swim with these curious, playful mammals. In Oregon and Washington, they are killed. I am appalled at the plan to shoot 85 California sea lions at Bonneville Dam each year for the next five years.

The Environmental Assessment is the sea lions eat from .4 to 4 percent of spring salmon, which the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) considers to be a "significant impact" on salmon recovery, while fishermen are allowed 13 percent and are considered an "insignificant impact."

Dams alone kill 10 percent of adult fish. It is obvious sea lions are being unjustly scapegoated by government agencies; the real threats to salmon populations are caused by humans overfishing, building dams and destroying their habitat.

Killing sea lions does not address these core problems; our money is better spent on conservation strategies.

Columbia River cruising has been a $50 million per year business, bringing people from all over the world to see the wildlife and natural beauty of the Gorge. I can imagine a cruise ship plowing its way up the river through a maze of fishing boats and the cruise director saying, as they pass through the Bonneville lock, "and over here you can see
the sharp shooters killing the 'federally protected' sea lions."

-- Melba Gohl, White Salmon

Moving us down a dead-end road

Whenever I see an article about "eco-friendly fuels" ["Governors envision eco-friendly fuels at I-5 rest stops," page one, March 8], I want to cry. Biodiesel and ethanol are far more injurious to the planet than fossil fuels, yet those who want to be "green" continue to go blindly down this dead-end road.

No one wants to think about the disastrous effects of using land to grow crops for the sole purpose of feeding our cars. Not only are food prices being driven up in poor nations, but rain forests all over the planet are being cut down by developing nations jumping on the biofuels bandwagon.

When it's finally too late -- when the last acre of rain forest is destroyed -- what will we tell our children? How will we explain the final, traumatic stress to the world biosphere came from people who claimed to be the "good guys"?

Biofuel fanatics are as stubborn as global-warming deniers in their refusal to consider the inconvenient truth.

History will remember them as the "bad guys."

-- James Freudiger, Seattle

Force-feeding dirty-coal power

Thank you for your recent article, "Puget wind power may go south" [Sunday Buzz, Business, Feb. 22]. This article exposes Puget Sound Energy's agreement to sell virtually all of the clean-wind energy it produces to Southern California Edison.

As a PSE-rate payer, I am shocked by this news.

PSE loves to tout its green power programs and, although these efforts are commendable, it strikes me as extremely disingenuous considering they are simultaneously selling our clean energy to the highest bidder.

So where does PSE's energy really come from? According to their Web site, 37 percent of its energy comes from coal power. To put this in perspective, last year PSE accounted for 58 percent of the coal energy consumed in Washington, consuming 8,591 gigawatt-hours of coal-generated power.

Coal is our dirtiest source of energy: It releases the most toxic substances into our air and water, causes the most severe health epidemics and is the worst contributor to global warming.

PSE-rate payers deserve to be told the truth about PSE's coal-energy addiction. We deserve to be given the green energy we've paid for. And, we deserve to stop being force fed dirty-coal power.

-- Dave Porter, Bellevue

The boat leaving the dock

Kudos to Michael Butler in his comprehensive guest column in favor of cap and trade ["Cap-and-invest approach good for environment and economy," Times, Feb. 23].

If the Bush administration hadn't jammed our country's collective head in the sand eight years ago, blocking U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, maybe we'd be a lot farther along in addressing the real issues facing the planet.

Washington state can either continue down that dead-end road or we can be among the leaders turning our country around in order to become a respected member of the global community.

The cap-and-trade bills currently in the Legislature provide a great opportunity for our state.

The boat has already left the dock in many economies around the world. Sadly, the U.S. is behind many European and Asian countries in developing frameworks that facilitate capitalizing on the opportunities available in solving global-environmental challenges.

If we continue to wait for others, others will pass us by. Washington must adopt cap and trade now, so we will be in the forefront of the new, greener economy and can reap the advantages available only to the leaders in such times of transition.

-- Holly Anderson, Bellevue

Make it mandatory

I read in The Seattle Times: "On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Environment, Water and Energy passed a version that gutted the plan by making it voluntary for businesses to participate" ["Committee chokes emissions plan," Local News, Feb. 24].

Without a mandatory cap, there will be no emissions market. Without mandatory constraints, there is no way to place a valid cost on emissions. So how can we hope to affect climate change?

A similar problem exists with the idea of a "fixed" carbon tax that everyone can use for planning purposes. How is this tax price to be determined? If it does not take into account the proposed emissions cap, how will it result in the intended objectives? If it is a fixed tax, how can it adjust to changing economic conditions?

Markets work.

In the United States, there are already national markets to reduce acid rain and nitrous oxide. These emissions markets have worked much better than expected and at much lower cost than anyone estimated.

I hope the legislators can restore the mandatory constraints so we will have a cap-and-invest bill that really works. We need to act now.

-- Dan Streiffert, Kent

Ban the belchers in our environment
I am extremely dissatisfied with the state Senate Committee on Environment, Water and Energy to push for voluntary participation in a carbon emissions-cap program.

Clean air is a public good we all benefit from, so polluters should be charged for the emissions they belch into our common resource. A mandatory cap-and-invest program, along the lines of Governor Christine Gregoire's bill, does just that.

But, voluntary, opt-in participation destroys the integrity of climate-change legislation.
Would drivers pay tolls if they were voluntary? Would smokers pay cigarette taxes if they were voluntary? Of course not. Tolls and cigarette taxes make up for the social costs of human activities that negatively affect others.

But, they are only effective because they are mandatory.

The Senate Committee must recognize that a voluntary carbon cap will have little to no impact on the activities of our dirtiest polluters. Until our legislators act on a mandatory cap-and-invest bill, unmitigated polluters will continue to damage common resources at the expense of all citizens.

-- Charles Davis, Seattle

Removing uncertainties, ensuring quick production

I would like to encourage all your readers to support House Bill 1086. This bill will create a Feed-in Tariff, which is a standard contract for green-energy power producers to receive payment per kilowatt sold into the grid.

The rate is different depending on the type of green energy, whether solar, wind, biomass, etc., and project size. The important thing is it removes all price questions when working with the local utility to interconnect.

This legislation will require the utility to connect the project into the grid and everyone will know the price they will receive for the green energy (electricity) they produce, before building the project. Most of the uncertainties will be removed that today prevent quick implementation of green-energy power production.

HB 1086 is moving through committees in the state House at this time, where it will then head to the Washington state Senate for a similarly successful committee review and to the governor's desk by the end of this session, April 29.

Please contact your local house representative, as well as your state senator, as they need to support the legislation in order to ensure it passes.

-- Mark Thomas, Bellingham

Time to get moving before greenhouse gases stack up

The Seattle Times is doing a good job of facilitating debate regarding the best policy for combating our ever-accelerating accumulation of greenhouse gases.

I favor the carbon tax as the most effective and simplest way to encourage increased conservation and development of clean energy. However, I think the Cap and Invest bill pending in the Washington state Legislature deserves support.

The main thing is to get moving since the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be to cut emissions to a sustainable level.

-- Robert Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle

Stop the surcharges

Puget Sound Energy's sale of all of its green power to SoCal Edison overlooks the 20,606 residences and 899 businesses that voluntarily pay a surcharge to receive green power from PSE.

At the very least, these surcharges should cease as of June. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission may have been surprised by the sale, but they should be on top of this situation affecting over 20,000 of their ratepayers.

-- Jim O'Malley, Bellevue

Taking responsibility, hoping for positive change

With China rising into hegemonic power as the United States slowly gives up its status, it is great that the two are discussing clean-energy technology ["Clean-energy forum lets U.S., China swap ideas," Business, Feb 18].

The previous, failed agreements only make this forum more important. For every week it takes to reach an agreement and begin acting upon it, China builds another coal-burning factory, which only increases carbon-dioxide output and furthers the need for clean-energy technology.

The destruction of the environment is not the responsibility of the countries who don't contribute to it; it is the responsibility of those who have caused the problem or added to it.

The United States and China are two of the most influential countries. They need to set an example for the rest of the world.
I truly hope that this agreement will lead to the type of action that will cause positive change.

-- Mari Hammerquist, Bellingham

No room for an "honest mistake"

Tim F. Geithner is a tax cheat ["Economic hot seat," Business, Jan. 18].

With his knowledge and use of professional tax accountants to prepare and file his taxes, there is absolutely no way that what he did to evade paying taxes is an "honest mistake." Why should Americans stand for a guy like this running the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service?

Further, why do we need him? There are plenty of people smart enough and experienced enough to do his job.

What message is the new administration trying to send to the American people? Is the message that the "culture of corruption" is alive and well in Washington?

That's the way I take it, since there is no shortage of talent without this kind of baggage out there ready to serve.

-- Rick Johnson, Burien

Don't discriminate against energy sources

In response to Paul Rogat Loeb's article ["Stoking the furnace of a green economy," guest columnist, Jan. 22], I offer the following observations.

The high-efficiency Trane furnace, which Loeb says he purchased, does promote American jobs in New Jersey and Texas, but the bottom-line profits flow to Bermuda where the principal executive office of Ingersoll Rand, the parent company, is located. This points out the need for our country to look carefully at our corporate tax rates with respect to foreign neighbors to make sure that we are competitive in this regard.

This will insure that jobs and profits are kept here.

My former business, Dorse and Company, Inc., was and still is a manufacturers' representative and now wholesaler of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. Part of the company's product offering has been and still is heat-recovery equipment. We've furnished a significant amount of this equipment for the past 30 years.

The main reason the end user buys this equipment is the relatively short payback period and the continued reduction in the cost of fuel thereafter. The secondary benefits, the reduction in pollution and carbon-dioxide emission, are also important.

For the past 30 years, our home, located on the shore of Puget Sound, has enjoyed the benefits of a heat-recovery system that I designed for our centrally-located fireplace. The fuel is driftwood that we burn only when the weather is permitting. The system draws in 100 percent outside air and pressurizes our living space so as to minimize infiltration. The back wall, which is brick, acts as a heat sink and continues to emit heat for at least 12 hours after the fire is out. When this system is operating, we turn down the thermostat, as there is no need for the gas-fired base board heating that serves the main floor. Similarly, I do a lot of barbecuing and this is only done with driftwood, never charcoal briquettes.

Where I disagree with Loeb is in his advocacy of mandating energy-efficient furnaces and a solar- and wind-energy generation. Let the market determine what is to be used; don't let the government pick winners and losers regarding the energy generation.

While our government restricts and regulates oil exploration and production, Saudi Arabia continues to discover vast oil reserves with state-of-the-art lateral drilling and develops cleaner-burning gasoline in their laboratories. Our energy policy should be comprehensive and encourage all forms of domestically produced energy.

-- Bob Dorse, Seattle

Taxes fuel the flame

How could you even publish such a misinformed idea as Ron Sher's opinion piece about boosting our gas tax ["A perfect time to boost the gas tax," guest commentary, Jan. 16]? Why can't people get it that our economy works best when the government lets us spend our own money instead of thinking that the government spends it better? What was this guy thinking?

People are losing their jobs right and left -- my own personal savings has been practically wiped out -- people are losing their homes and the economy is on a downward path that seems to have no end in sight.

Raising taxes on anything right now is like throwing gas on a fire. I noticed that Sher is a pretty successful businessman. How could he be so insensitive at the same time? Raising gas taxes? You have got to be kidding me.

-- Robert Rudd, Lynnwood

No different from a private investor

I agree with Danny Westneat's general premise; at first glance the bank's behavior seems quite objectionable ["Bailout trickles up, not down," column, Jan. 14]. However, I do have two main points to make.

The vendors who have agreed to delay payment are probably taking a "futures contract" on the aforementioned Pam Pentz' ability to pay eventually. But exactly how long will they wait? How much in late payment fees might they ultimately require? When will they sue if payment is not forthcoming after a certain extended period of time?

Eventually, if she cannot pay, each of them will have to make this decision. They may be willing to "forbear" immediate payment, but no doubt their patience will eventually be exhausted, each on their own schedule. "Good for it" for a month seems very appropriate, but I doubt six months would be.

Why should a bank be expected to act any differently than a private investor? I suspect that Westneat, despite the current state of the economy, has some money in investments, retirement accounts and college funds (if he has children). I ask him to answer then, please, what exact return, terms and conditions would he require to lend her the money himself? Six percent a year? 10 percent? 20 percent?

Suppose Pentz offered to pay 50 percent interest? 100 percent? Oops. The two of you can't make that contract — usury laws. So, I guess even if there were an informed borrower and lender, the government would help determine which businesses succeed and which fail based on regulation of loan interest.

One of the key issues in the current "crisis" is that many traditional risk models are suspect, but can't be properly adjusted due to the friction of regulation, tradition or indignation informed by emotion, not mathematics.

Why shouldn't Pentz or anyone else be able to offer a loan request on, say, eBay and let the market bid without limit or restriction?

-- Norman Mainer, Redmond

Strong action against global warming

As an avid outdoorsman in Washington state, global warming is a really important issue to me because the increasingly violent weather patterns related to climate change are directly affecting our way of life in the Puget Sound region. We have experienced this recently within the flooding throughout the Puget Sound region.

I'm excited that President-elect Obama has identified global warming and clean energy as top priorities. I hope Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, will let our new president know that the people of Seattle will support him in taking strong action when he takes office Tuesday.

Most importantl, I urge President-elect Obama to commit to cutting emissions by at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is, consistent with what the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says developed countries must achieve to prevent catastrophic warming.

We've got a historic opportunity in front of us. Now it's time to get to work.

-- Geoff Guillory, Seattle

Want more, pay more

I seems obvious to me: The more the citizens of this country ask the government to do for them, the more it is going to cost. That means more taxes, not a rebate of taxes.

No Virginia, there is no such thing as a money tree. This may come as a shock to many, especially those who bought homes they could not afford or those who ran their credit-card balance to a point they could make the payments.

Any service we ask for must be paid for.

-- Bob Ely, Bellevue

Diesel retrofits, a win-win

As we look for ways to jump-start, "green" our economy and grow jobs at the same time, Congress is considering investing up to $1.5 billion in upgrading and retrofitting existing diesel equipment in order to reduce its air-pollution emissions. This is a proven and cost-effective approach to cleaner air that is shovel-ready should it be included in a stimulus package that builds upon existing efforts in Washington state to retrofit and replace school buses, other public fleet vehicles and diesel engines used at our seaports.

Diesel engines are the workhorse of the economy, building roads and utility infrastructure, bringing folks to work and children to school, and delivering the goods we depend on via our highways, rail lines and local seaports. Thanks to new emissions-control technology, the tens of thousands of existing engines can now be upgraded to improve efficiency and reduce emissions up to 85 percent.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funds a portion of these retrofits and has already delivered proven benefits here through cleaner school buses and port equipment. The retrofit industry is also important to Washington-state workers employed at companies that service, manufacture or use emissions-reduction equipment for their diesel vehicles and equipment.

EPA estimates that DERA generates $13 of economic benefit for every $1 spent on diesel retrofits. The economic-stimulus package offers an opportunity to help scale up diesel retrofitting on a much larger basis, improve local air quality and secure Washington jobs, not just at the manufacturers, but at equipment service and repair facilities, which install and maintain this equipment.

Both industry and clean-air advocates agree: It's a win-win for the economy and air quality. We hope that U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, and the rest of our Congressional delegation will support this important initiative.

-- Dennis McLerran, Seattle

Checking in twice

The Jan. 8 Seattle Times article "Farming first victim of global warming?" [Local News] included the statement, "By the end of this century, the odds are higher than 90 percent that average temperatures during the growing season will be higher than ever before in recorded history across a big swath of the planet … "

The April 28, 1975, Newsweek article "The Cooling World" included the statement, "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But, they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

The totally incorrect meteorological "consensus" presented in the 1975 Newsweek article indicates the high-error potential associated with predicting long-term climate change and its effect on agricultural productivity.

-- Ken Schlichte, Tumwater

Heads in the sand

Why on earth would Commissioners Patrick Oshie and Mark Sidran of the Utilities and Transportation Commission even give a thought to approving the sale of Puget Sound Energy (PSE) when the whole proposal had a decidedly bad smell from the beginning? ["Wrong decision on PSE," editorial, Jan. 6.]

Now that the deal seems to be done, even more troubling aspects are coming to light. One wonders whether these two men were making decisions with their heads buried in the sand.

Surely, they had to have had access to all the information beforehand and well before the public was privy to some of the more questionable financial issues related to the purchase. So what were they thinking?

Haven't we seen enough of such warped and unwise deals in the past year or longer?

Hopefully, there is an avenue for the governor to step in and nix this irresponsible decision.

-- Ruth Quiban, Seattle

A load too large

The story about the need to upgrade our grid system illustrates the enormous subsidies provided to centralized power, to the disadvantage of more environmentally friendly alternatives ["Northwest may blaze U.S. path to green grid," News, Dec. 15].

Consider the benefits of investing $900 trillion for insulation and other conservation measures for our homes and commercial buildings. Power companies are afforded tax write-offs for investments and a multitude of direct and indirect subsidies, unlike energy conservation and generation actions that can be taken by the individual homeowner and business owner.

The consequence is higher energy consumption with its side effects. Power companies have been rapidly building new power plants knowing fully that the transmission system cannot handle the load.

-- Gary Minton, Seattle

Don't rush it

Claims that the oil-shale industry is ready to develop are premature, as the industry does not yet even exist ["Rules set up for oil-shale extraction on federal land," Politics, Nov. 17].

As a resident of oil-shale country, I believe your readers deserve to know the truth about how their water could be affected by the oil-shale processes.

Water experts, elected officials and the Bureau of Land Management agree that oil shale requires vast amounts of water.

Meanwhile, water supplies in the West are projected to decline, while demands for agriculture and human use are expected to increase dramatically.

Oil-shale projects would draw on this same source that is already stretched to support 25 million people in seven Western states and Mexico.

The people of the West must be made fully aware of oil shale's risks to dwindling water supplies. Until we see details from the industry as to how it will protect our water, the industry must not be rushed forward recklessly.

-- Steve Smith, Glenwood Springs, Colo.

Paul Sakuma / The Associated Press

Gas prices have dipped to their lowest point in nearly three years.

Adapt to the times

Editor, The Times:

How sad it is that humans seem destined to run in circles, forever tripping over the mistakes of the past ["SUVs: They're baaack," Motoring, Dec. 5].

Are the $4-per-gallon gas prices of just a few months ago merely a distant memory? Fossil fuels are finite resources; today's prices are artificially low considering the costs (social, political and environmental) involved in procuring and using such resources.

Gas prices will spike again as the depletion of petroleum deposits continues. The state of the U.S. auto market, with its thousands of unsold SUVs, provides a glaring example of the consequences of failing to adapt to the times.

America's oil addiction will be cured only through changing our entire paradigm concerning the use of fossil fuels and opening our minds to alternative sources of energy. "Bringing baaack" the SUV is a step in the wrong direction.

-- Sarah Washburn, Seattle

Look to the ocean

There is another solution to mining besidesenvironmentally destructive surface-strip mining: saltwater. The ocean has numerous metals (gold, silver, manganese, iron, etc.) which can be extracted via electrolysis.

By pumping saltwater inland, it creates inland lakes, where solar energy evaporates water, thus creating salt brine. Electrolysis of this brine creates hydrogen, sodium, oxygen and chlorides, along with capturing these rare metals. The evaporation of water from these lakes create local rainfall, stimulating local agriculture.

These lakes can also grow algae, which can be converted to biofuels. By combining algae for fuel with minerals extraction, it could be profitable and eliminate the need for environmentally destructive strip mining.

Underneath the American West is a deep alkaline/saltwater reservoir, which by using wind energy could pump this resource to the surface, creating inland salt-brine lakes. This could be a huge industry, meeting all of our mineral and fuel needs if the mining industry would only pay attention.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

Buy 'em up

Rather than just throwing good money after bad in an auto-industry bailout, how about creating a guaranteed market for high-tech, environmentally appropriate cars, like 50+ mpg diesels and biofueled, plug-in hybrids?

With a government guarantee, the auto manufacturers and their suppliers and creditors would have certainty that they will realize a return for building 21st-century designs.

The proposed $25 billion could pay for or finance the purchase of 2 million $25,000 cars. (Requiring open-market sales ensures that the product meets the market test.) Two million cars is not insignificant; annual U.S. auto sales have been around 16 million per year, but are dropping fast. The proceeds from sales or financing could be recycled to provide multiyear support.

-- Robert Redmayne, Seattle

Let's weigh our priorities

Every 10 weeks another $25 billion goes down the drain in Iraq. And people want to complain about wasting that same amount bailing out the automakers? At least we have a chance to recoup that investment.

Shoring up an industry that 2 million American jobs rely on is a risk we can afford; flushing $25 billion every 10 weeks is not.

If the carmakers have trouble paying us back, why not just leave Iraq 10 weeks earlier than whatever future a deadline calls for and be happy?

-- Thad McManus, Hansville

Big Oil owes us

Dear senators,

I suggest that it would be eminently fair to exploit the symbiotic relationship between the auto manufacturers and Exxon et al by having the latter provide any bridge loans required.

Big Oil can certainly afford it better than we taxpayers. And if one were to view the automakers and the oil companies as a single entity, one could easily say that we have already made our significant contribution via the recent obscene profits of those oil and gas folks.

-- Lee Trousdale, Mercer Island

Join together now

The CEOs of Ford, Chrysler and GM, seemed to make a collective point that bankruptcy is off the table because consumers would never buy a car from a bankrupt company ["Big Three get more time to make case," News, Nov. 21].

I suggest the auto companies form a company by all three that would provide one service warranty to their buyers -- similar to the concept of extended warranties consumers can purchase. The work would be performed by the service departments of existing dealerships of their particular car. This entity could be insured by a respected insurance company to preserve its viability and give comfort to car buyers.

This way, a consumer could confidently buy a car even if the manufacturer is in Chapter 11. I would imagine there could be some economies of scale.

Another possible approach to our economic crisis would be to pull out an old concept used during World War II: the sale of war bonds to finance our current needs such as education.

If 100 million bonds were sold in varying denominations that would average $300 per bond, we could raise $30 billion. The good thing is the people would be part of the solution and feel they are making a contribution to our country and their grandchildren.

--Walt Winrow, Seattle

Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty Images

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, General Motors (GM) CEO Richard Wagoner, Jr., Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli and Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally, left to right, wait to testify before the House Finincial Services Committee on Wednesday.

Spit out the razzle-dazzle

Editor, The Times:

The U.S. auto industry has a handful of gimme and a mouthful of Mustang razzle-dazzle, with continually increasing horsepower and falling miles per gallon ["Auto-industry bailout facing a rough road," Politics, Nov. 18]. If there is to be a federal bailout, it should be with the condition that fuel-efficient vehicles must be the priority.

The government cash should go to purchase stock in the companies, which is probably a pretty good bargain right now. Then the new administration will have added leverage to achieve its goals of combating global warming and moving this country toward energy independence.

-- Roger Lippman, Seattle

Demand better

I am against the idea of infusing cash into the automobile industry as it stands today. This is an industry that has historically shot itself in the foot with R&D, labor and marketing.

Who's to blame? The management and the unions, and to a lesser extent, we the consumers.

An infusion of taxpayers' cash without a complete restructuring of business practices is only the postponement of the inevitable. What is truly needed is for these companies to go through the bankruptcy process, which will force the restructuring they have avoided. Yes, countless suppliers will be hurt, jobs will be lost and social services will be strained. But in the long run, is it not healthier to take the hurt/pain now than just throw cash at them and hope they fix it?

The current management and union leadership will fight against such a process tooth and nail, only looking out for their own interests, which seem to be 180 degrees apart. But wouldn't it be better in the long run to make some cars than make absolutely none? Wouldn't it be better to keep your union members employed, even if it requires lower wages and benefits?

As consumers, we should demand an increase in the fuel-economy standards from our elected representatives. This would help reduce our dependence on imported oil. Forcing fuel-efficiency standards that set the bar high for cars and SUVs and pickups will spur innovation in design and technology.

Federal mandates for new technologies need to be ironclad, with no exceptions. Tax incentives need to be tied to production of new modes of powering vehicles and only be given when the minimum thresholds have been met -- no exceptions. Set strict percentage standards of new technology-powered vehicles to the total output and inside of that standard, percentages by type, across the board -- no exceptions. Set these new standards now with a due date no later than four years from now.

We should also take a look at what we've been buying. With multiple SUVs and pickups in every driveway, we have helped lead them down the path to where they are today. Our voracious appetite for bigger, stronger, faster needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of what do I need versus what I want.

In the long run the survival of these three companies and their multitude of suppliers will require a complete mindset change for everyone involved. It will be painful for almost everyone, but the end result will produce jobs, profits, a safer country and a cleaner environment.

-- Dave Herrington, Edmonds

Let's be winners

The automakers are asking for a $25 billion bailout.

If Congress wants to help the auto industry, the answer isn't to give them this money. The answer is to take the same $25 billion and pay the first $5,000 of a vehicle cost for the first 5 million Americans who purchase a new vehicle that is at least 50 percent manufactured in the U.S. from GM, Ford or Chrysler.

This way, Congress would help the automakers and their suppliers sell more vehicles, support workers, directly help individual Americans get safer transportation and boost consumer spending by encouraging purchases by consumers who might otherwise not have bought a car this year.

It's called win, win, win, win.

-- Christopher Hodgkin, Friday Harbor

They get what they can

One specific of The Times' informative gas-price story is hard to accept: "… because Eastern Washington can buy its gas from refineries in Utah and Alberta, which could have lower prices than the Seattle-area gas [from Western Washington refineries]" ["State gas prices lowest since February 2006," News, Nov. 12].

As Vice President-elect Joseph Biden recently said, "give us a break."

Gas doesn't come to Ellensburg or Othello in cross-state pipelines; it comes in tank trucks. Both are about 90 to 130 miles from Seattle, a two to three hour tanker drive, and surely only slightly more from some Yakima, Tri-City or Spokane distribution point.

An alert middle-school math and geography student could spot this fallacious excuse.
It's called "zone pricing" -- better labeled, "get what we can."

This reader was in Othello and Ellensburg for Veterans Day. Gas was $2.27 in Othello and, get this -- $1.95 at the Thorp-Ellensburg ARCO, the "refinery capitals" of the West, for regular grade.

-- Don Gulliford, Mercer Island

Let's use the water
that surrounds us

Seattle Times staff reporter Michelle Ma wrote of various methods of generating electricity by capturing ocean waves and tides ["Concerns emerge about environmental effects of wave-energy technology," News, Nov. 17].
I have often wondered why someone hasn't investigated capturing the flow of tidal water that runs through the Tacoma Narrows channel. Anyone with a low-powered boat can testify to the strong currents that flow under the Narrows Bridge during tide change.

Too late now, but couldn't they have designed turbine tunnels in the footings when they built the new Narrows Bridge?

-- Emery Eckert, Mercer Island

Rent a camel

Since the world is presently building more than 300 liquid-natural-gas supertankers, it would be good to find a few places where natural gas can be recovered. This also adds another option to those who think we need pipelines to bring Alaska products to the lower 48 states. It reminds us that our resources do not often end up being used here; things tend to go to the highest bidder.

Are you ready for Hertz rent-a-camel?

-- Hugh Coleman, Kelso

This will fix everything

Let's address the climate crisis and put people to work at the same time with a clean-energy economy fueled by green jobs.

A clean-energy economy will create millions of new green jobs that America desperately needs. Green jobs aren't just the jobs of the future, they are the jobs of today.

The oil and coal companies have spent millions in lobbying and advertising to block the switch to clean energy. We need to take back this country and re-power America by letting our leaders know that we want this clean-energy economy now.

Americans are ready for bold action. We can revitalize our economy with good jobs, clean, renewable energy and a healthy climate.

-- Kim Ledgerwood, Bothell

Everything's coming up green

For the past eight years, the general public has been "dubbed down" and misled on global climate change and sustainable green issues. We can change this, and hopefully, if and when this is printed, our national election has confirmed this hope.

Your recent commentary was right on mark ["States, cities step up climate-change responses," syndicated columnist, Oct. 20].

I was in England in September when Prime Minister Gordon Brown created the Ministry of Energy and Climate Change. Brown appeared on the BBC [British Broadcasting Corporation] and stated that Britain's future will be based on a green-industry economy, to pull their country out of the looming recession.

We in the U.S. have not been fully asleep. There are sustainable industries growing throughout the country. from wind-turbine factories springing up in the "rust belt" to cities competing to be the most green. These are just the beginnings of our own U.S. green-industry birth.

The U.S. Green Building Council, with our local Cascadia chapter taking the lead on many issues and Mayor Greg Nickel's climate change agreements, now 700 plus strong, is creating a strong Northwest presence nationally.

We need a collaborative federal mandate, federal funding and a Department of Climate Change and Sustainable Energy.

-- Paul Crane, Seattle

Do it now

Failure to pass Proposition 1 will be a big setback for Seattleites. As the growth continues, so will the gridlock. The cost that critics say is enormous is inaccurate. To postpone this project will be more costly in future -- doubling or tripling the cost due to inflation.

This is exactly what happened in my former Los Angeles residence. After the light-rail and subway were completed, there were proposals to extend it from downtown to the Santa Monica pier but voters turned it down because of the cost and construction noise.

Five years later, due to rapid and continued growth, the gridlock from Westwood to West Los Angeles up to Santa Monica became unbearable. The proposal was then brought back to the table in 2007 and was approved to extend the subway for more than $1 billion. Had they approved this years before, it could have been a lot cheaper and would have been finished by now.

Whether we like it or not, taxes will go up, whoever is running the government. As growth continues, so does the need for more infrastructure and upgrades for basic services. Where will we get the money to pay for this?

If we don't want to raise taxes then we should live like a Third World country.

What we need is to fix the economy, and go back to the American way with decent wages and more jobs.

-- Tom Lasam, Seattle

Waiting for pigs to fly
Oil closed below $70 a barrel today.

Unless you're looking for that news, you probably don't care or didn't hear that.

Back on July 11 of this year, oil was selling for $147.27 a barrel and gasoline was selling for $4.11 a gallon.

Lets do some quick math here.

If the price of a barrel of oil has dropped by 50 percent, shouldn't we be seeing gas selling for around $2.05 soon?

We all know how fast the price rises, right? When do you think we'll see the price drop under $2.50?

Personally, I'm waiting for pigs to fly.
-- Steve Drake, Seattle

Redneck elitism
Editor, The Times:
You've heard of "limousine liberals" and "country-club conservatives?" Now meet America's new elite: rednecks.

Redneck elitism tells you you're better than Sen. Barack Obama because he's from the city and you're from a rural town; he went to Harvard Law and you didn't go to college; he speaks in grammatical sentences and you prefer one-liners; he thinks rationally, you're driven by your gut.

AP Photo/Pool, Charles Dharapak

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., wave to the audience after a presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Wednesday.

If you live in mountain or prairie states, you're better than people on the coasts. As a varsity athlete in public school, you know more than a Ph.D. Because you never ventured out of state or visited another country, you're more patriotic that someone who can name five nations contiguous to Iraq, or define the difference between Sunni and Shi'ah. If your evangelical Protestant, you're saved: other religions be damned. You voted for President George W. Bush because he's a guy you could have a beer with. You'll vote for Gov. Sarah Palin because she kills bigger animals than you've ever hunted. You couldn't care less how much she knows about foreign policy.

Redneck elitism is quaint, nationalistic and dangerous. Hitler's Brown Shirts burned books, beat up Jews and spawned fascism because they were redneck elites. Gov. Sarah Palin links Obama to terrorists. People scream, "Traitor! Kill him!" And she winks.

I guess I'm no elite.

I'll vote for someone smarter, better-educated and more cosmopolitan than I'll ever be: I'm electing the chief executive for a nation in crisis, not a drinking buddy.
--Alfred LaMotte, Steilacoom

Shameful manipulation
As an actively engaged voter, from a home with a variety of political perspectives and voting histories, I watched the presidential debates last night, eager to hear the candidates clarify their positions on key issues ["Accusations fly in final debate," Times, page one, Oct. 16].

Like many other voters in this election, I am repulsed by the finger pointing and hateful rhetoric, which has taken the focus away from the very real issues that matter most to voters.

After the debates, I checked the Web sites of several major news outlets to obtain perspective on the candidates' performances. In so doing, I also looked at the electoral maps, which most major news outlets provide as a view into projected voter trends.

I was amazed to see that Fox News, which purports to provide "fair and balanced coverage," has no updated electoral map. Their map shows results from the past two elections, in 2004 and 2006, but not the current election.

This is not a result of a temporary Web-site malfunction; Fox's electoral map has been disabled since the last debate, when I also checked it.

If Fox News wants to be taken seriously by the general public as a source of unbiased reporting on current events, they will need to be much less obvious in their censorship of information.

Their blatant refusal to inform their viewers about the current state of projected voting trends is not fair, nor is it balanced.

Fox News' failure to provide fair and balanced coverage should be addressed on the front pages of other papers around the country.

The public has a right to know, and journalists have an obligation to cover, Fox's shameful manipulation of the "news" it covers.
-- Bonnie Zinn, Seattle

Was there anybody listening?
I'm an Independent.

But I think I watched a different debate than everyone else last night. Apparently, no one in the post-mortems heard Sen. John McCain say the following when asked about whether he would have a litmus test for a potential Supreme Court nominee: "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test."

Sure sounds like a litmus test to me.

And this bit of truly revelatory exposure of the far right's true foreign-relations agenda when asked about Sen. Joseph Biden's qualifications: "He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it and, obviously, we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would've threatened the Middle Eastern world supply."

Supply of what? Freedom?

No, it was oil. The stated reason for "Operation Desert Storm" was supposed to be to preserve the freedom of a sovereign country against an invading aggressor.

At least we know the real truth about why McCain wants us to stay in Iraq and why President George W. Bush invaded it.

Although I staunchly remain a member of neither party, I have no doubt who's not getting my vote.
-- Stephen Salamunovich, Redmond

Thanks a lot, Joe
Hey Joe, last night we heard a lot about you and your dilemma. Sounds like things are starting to look pretty good for you, though, and you are wondering which of these candidates can help you the most.

Yes, America has some problems right now. Much of the former middle class is struggling, health-care costs are out of control; education and educational opportunities are suffering; the financial markets are collapsing, and so is our infrastructure.

But I'm delighted to hear that things are looking up for you and your personal economy.

I'm glad to hear you are earnestly considering which of these candidates is best for you. But I'm saddened to hear you think it might be Sen. John McCain.

I want you and every other undecided voter out there to think about what JFK said:
"And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

This is a great country. It truly is the land of opportunity.

Despite its serious problems, our nation is a great one and we are lucky to live in it. I feel lucky to have been born here, to have the opportunity to live here, to make my living here. America has been very good to me.

I find it increasingly difficult to take seriously people who wrap themselves in our flag, call themselves patriotic, and then moan about paying too much in taxes. You can't have it both ways.

America embraces us. America gives us strong soil to nurture our crops and now some people who call themselves patriots want to go cheap on her -- just when she needs us most.

They're saying, "Hey America. Thanks for the opportunity, thanks for giving me everything I needed, and by the way, sorry to hear about your problems. Good luck with them."

America is in trouble and is in debt.

We are America and are in trouble. Instead of bitching about how much it is costing us as individuals, how about if we all pitch in and come to the aid of the great nation that has done so much for so many.

How about if we all do our part?

Hey Joe, I paid my taxes yesterday. The good news is that I can't believe a poor boy like me, who started with so little, has done so well. The bad news is that I know I will have to pay more next year. I can't wait.

Thank you, America
-- Walter Cougan, Seattle

How did he get this far?
Debate one: Sen. John McCain didn't make eye contact.

Debate two: McCain referred to Sen. Barack Obama as "that one."

Debate three: McCain kept grimacing, frowning and snorting.

Presidential behavior? I don't think so.
-- Don Franks, Burien

Stick with corruption and earmarks
The reason we have been unsuccessful in the war is because by invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, we have lent credence to the Arab view that we are out to conquer the Islamic world and steal their oil.

John McCain still believes it was the right thing to do and still wants to win it.

I don't think we can ever be certain that terrorism isn't a danger, but when we give Iraq back its country, there will be less danger.

We have to stop thinking "if you are not for us, you're against us." To do that requires a knowledge of history, understanding of other cultures, ability to see other points of view and tolerance of other religions.
These are strengths of Sen. Barack Obama.

Leave McCain in the Senate where he can fight corruption and earmarks, and work with Democrats as he has promised to do.
-- Robert Wright, Yakima

Change starts with us
Editor, The Times:
I know every person in this country is concerned with the current state of the economy. I think it's important to also remember the status of the climate and what it implies for all of us. We can combine these two problems to create a better economy, green jobs and a cleaner environment ["Study forecasts 4 million 'green' jobs," Times, Business & Technology, Oct. 2].

PRNewsFoto/MasTec, Inc.

The Wanzek 80-megawatt wind-farm project in Dayton, Wash.

A clean-energy economy will create millions of new green jobs that cannot be outsourced. This is what America desperately needs.

Oil and coal companies have spent millions lobbying and advertising to stop the change to clean energy. I find this disgusting as an American who desperately wants to stop the climate crisis for my children.

It is time we stand up to oil companies and bring attention to the positive alternatives and the ability for us to revitalize our economy with great jobs, clean renewable energy and a healthy climate for our children.
-- Erin Seitz-Wilson, Maple Valley

We're smarter than this
I cannot fathom how we as a nation can be so stupid. We still have not come up with new technologies to free the U.S. from foreign dependency of energy and haven't solved the climate crisis.

It really is a no-brainer.

There could be so many jobs created here with the $600,000 per hour we send out of the country.

Our leaders have to be smarter and demand that this happens.
--Linda Heinz, Snohomish

Waste wood? Duh
An appropriate response to Wednesday's announcement that the city will produce energy from waste wood should elicit both a cheer and a "duh" ["Waste wood to heat downtown Seattle buildings," news, Oct. 8].

It's not a new or an exotic technology, just the employment of a tiny paradigm tweak in the direction of appropriate technology -- a redefinition of what constitutes "waste."

Who knows? Maybe someday we'll get serious and realize that sunlight is power and that rain, like river water, can be used and reused on its way through our homes and cities. Furthermore, rain and sun can be shared with society or simply employed right where they fall with no transmission losses.

Of course, the most elegant and efficient energy-production equivalent is conservation, an art barely addressed in our country.
-- Jeff Collum, Seattle

We don't want more-of-the-same
Clean coal? Drill, baby, drill?

What happened to wind and solar?

I'm a little concerned when listening to the presidential candidates talk about alternative energy.

Wind and solar, two of our cleanest and most viable alternative energy solutions, seem to be getting pushed further down the list in favor of nuclear, clean coal and offshore drilling. This is our clean-energy plan of the future?

While all options need to be explored, the priority needs to be put on clean-energy solutions, not solutions backed by big business and powerful lobbies. We need leaders in business and government who are willing to stand up for what we truly need, and no matter who gets into the White House, millions of Americans will be watching closely to see which green-energy solutions will be rolled out first.

Will it be truly clean energies, or will it be polished-up versions of more-of-the-same?
--Norman Bell, Seattle

What happens when the well runs dry?
Our nation must pay more attention to the environmental damage we are causing.

Global warming is a real issue that is frequently pushed aside. We know where we are going and how we are getting there but we stand by and do nothing.

Why must we keep drilling for more oil? The well will run dry and we will wish we had not destroyed our ozone.

We should be investing in cleaner and more efficient power. Solar power provides an immeasurable energy source and is environmentally friendly. Our cars could run on this energy if only we invested some time and money into it rather than into drilling for more oil.
--Eric Bergen, Bellevue

Scott Olson / The Associated Press

Sen. John McCain, foreground, and Sen. Barack Obama share a rare laugh during Tuesday night's town-hall debate in Nashville, Tenn.

Iraq is no success
Editor, The Times:
During Tuesday's debate, Sen. John McCain tried once again to pitch the Iraq war as a success story, asserting that victory -- a real "mission accomplished" -- is right around the bend ["Tension, but little venom," Times, page one, Oct. 8].

There is no victory cry that can be cobbled together on the backs of this war's human tallies: nearly 4,200 U.S. soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and humanitarian crises stemming from more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

McCain uses "the surge" as justification for starting and continuing a war that has been wrong from the outset. The United States has dug its heels into Iraq, constructing the world's largest embassy in a country where our invasion and occupation has wreaked devastation and ruin. We are establishing permanent military bases against Iraqi requests, keeping U.S. military might on the watch and prowl over Mideast oil reserves.

McCain's position on Iraq does not signal good judgment, nor does his insistence that victory can yet be wrung from the Iraqi soil. It is representative of his penchant to march toward war, and his incomprehension about the desperate need for the United States to practice diplomacy rather than trumpeting the drumbeats and guns of war.
-- Nancy Dickeman, Seattle

Debate redundancy
What I saw Tuesday night was a repeat of the first debate.

It doesn't matter what the question was, the answer from either participant rambled on about this, that or the other thing.

Can we please have a debate? To debate means to argue, not continually give us your ideas on things. (Look up the meaning of the word "debate," if you don't believe me.) When will Sen. Barack Obama bring up the Keating 5? Is McCain blackmailing him or something?

It has been drilled into me that we use 25 percent of the world's oil, but only produce 3 percent. Got it. Tell me something new, or I'm sleeping through the entire next debate!
-- Steve Drake, Seattle

Bomb joke not funny, McCain
During Tuesday's presidential debate, Senator John McCain said he was "just joking" with one of his friends, when he sang "bomb, bomb Iran."

What a great joker!

Someone who thinks he is fit to be president is joking about bombing other countries? Wow!
I would have liked to have seen someone in the room ask him how he would feel if a politician from another country "joked" about bombing the United States.

I am pretty sure he would not like that joke at all and think that those people must be terrorists, according to his definition of terrorism.

This man shows anything but leadership qualities. He sounds and acts like a senile, old man, running around mumbling to himself and calling everyone else stupid.

I hope people of this country can wake up and see the evil they are facing before it is too late. They did not do that eight years ago, but, hopefully, they have learned by now.
-- Farokh Talebi, Kirkland

McCain's policies scary
Sen. John McCain and his logic (or lack thereof) scares me.

During the debate last night, he said that he wouldn't raise taxes for anyone, but he would lower taxes for some people. He even implied that he would lower taxes for as many people as Sen. Barack Obama will. But the money to run the country -- and, hopefully, to start paying off the national debt -- has to come from somewhere.

Under the tax plan McCain preaches, where will this money come from? If McCain doesn't plan to undo President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, we will lose even more revenue. This is not the way to handle the economic crisis.

Another thing he said that frightened me: He clearly stated that nuclear power is clean and safe. Excuse me, but does no one remember the Chernobyl disaster? I hope people don't buy into his unsupported lies.
Besides these twisted energy and economy policies, McCain said little about his own policies for the future, only saying what he has voted for or misquoting Obama. Sometimes, things he said about Obama were outright lies, with no more grounding in fact than the "safety" of nuclear reactors.

McCain is dangerous. I am grateful to all the war veterans, but that does not make someone suited for the presidency.
-- Kelsey Josund (age 15), Lake Forest Park

The candidates needed to heel
After watching the "town hall" debate and seeing the terse, frustrated look on moderator Tom Brokaw's face as he tried to make something meaningful of the evening, I couldn't help but think the debate commission should take a lesson from Larry and Kirby.

Kirby is a young, frisky golden retriever, and Larry is Kirby's owner. They are very loyal to each other. Rather than relying on an electric fence -- used in big areas where dogs spend a lot of time chasing deer or getting lost -- Larry gave Kirby an electric collar. It took a few times for the dog to realize that getting a little jolt meant stop and come back. Now all he has to do is hear the warning tone, and he gets the message and returns to base.

How much better the debate would have been if Brokaw could have had such a tool when the candidates wandered away from the question!
-- Bill Clapp, Seattle

Do it right
Regarding Monday's editorial on the case for an eight-lane Highway 520 bridge ["The new 520 bridge: a case for 8 lanes," editorial, Oct. 6], I question the source of your expert opinion.

Engineers say that an eight-lane alternative will not improve congestion because traffic will clog up once Highway 520 reaches Interstate 5. You offer Eastside road planner James MacIsaac's "solution": two lanes of traffic could be peeled off at Montlake. But anyone who has tried to exit westbound Highway 520 at Montlake during afternoon rush hour knows that the line can snake back to the middle of the bridge because of slow traffic on Montlake.

In the same section of your paper is a story about inflated cost estimates put forward by foes of the light-rail ballot initiative. It turns out that the person providing these exaggerated numbers is none other than the same James MacIsaac. It seems that MacIsaac is not a reliable source of objective information.

Perhaps your editorial would have been more credible had you consulted an actual transportation engineer, or at least someone who does not appear to have a strongly pro-roads, anti-transit agenda.

Certainly, strategic highway improvements, such as lengthening merges by adding collector-distributor lanes, can really improve congestion by making it easier and safer for traffic to maintain constant speeds as vehicles enter and exit the freeway. But just throwing extra lanes on Highway 520 doesn't seem right.
-- Jamie Strausz-Clark, Seattle

What empire?
In response to Lance Dickie's rumination on the waning American empire, ["As American empire wanes, the world shrugs its shoulders," editorial column, Oct. 2] consider this:

We are now paying for many decades of misplaced priorities in which a permanent war economy has trumped all concerns for domestic economic and social health. What would be on a domestic need-to-do wish list?

How about addressing education. Dickie reflects on the burgeoning global economy and the enormous political shifts contained therein. While we as a nation have been for many years inundated with the argument that education, science literacy and numeracy, along with refined technical skills are critical to a competent work force in an ever-evolving technological society, we have simultaneously witnessed a persistent erosion of vast swaths of public education.

In many communities, school facilities are inadequate and in some instances literally falling apart. This is a particular tragedy in many inner city schools where obtaining a decent education is becoming increasingly difficult if not impossible.

A full-scale commitment to reinvigorating public education could staunch the trends in illiteracy and innumeracy, and ensure that an educated citizenry can meet the economic and political challenges of an interdependent global community.

Salvaging our decaying infrastructure, ensuring that all citizens are properly housed, creating a truly accessible and just system of health care and assisting ready and willing workers with adequate and dignified employment are but a few areas of domestic concern that must be addressed if this nation is to reclaim its legacy of hope.

The path we have been on has been abysmal and we are now reaping the bitter fruits of that folly. It is high time to claim a new ethos and direction for America.
-- Joe Martin, Seattle

Start the movement
It is time to look at what is happening in our country and begin the vital search for better energy sources and along with this kind of new industry the kind of jobs that fulfill that goal ["Study forecasts 4 million 'green' jobs," Business/Technology, Oct. 2].

Many of the jobs we have today do not support our environment and instead leave more waste and byproducts. We can do better and begin that path toward a better life.

Green jobs are just what we need to help us get out of this economic slump. It is certainly not the only answer, but it is a big part of a multi-solution recovery process.

Our planet's survival depends on leadership from the most powerful nation in the world -- the United States of America.
-- Astha Tada, Seattle

Calling all visionaries
Financial crisis, global warming, low employment, pollution, dependence on foreign countries and national debt are a sampling of problems that we are handing to the youth of America. But most of our problems can be solved if we turn to our pioneering roots. A clean-energy economy based on 100 percent renewable sources like wind, wave and solar power will create millions of new green jobs, eliminate our dependence on coal and oil and show the rest of the world that Americans still have the pioneering spirit.

Our proud heritage is muddied now by our leaders' inability to see beyond the status quo, but we have never let this stop us in the past. America was founded by visionaries who saw the problems and stopped at nothing to fix them..

America is at a crossroads and we are ready for bold action.
-- Caron LeMay, Kirkland

Biden won the debate
Editor, The Times:
Sen. Joseph Biden clearly won the vice-presidential debate on Thursday night ["VPs deliver; will focus shift?" Times, page one, Oct. 3]. Gov. Sarah Palin clearly has no clue about what it's like to be in the national spotlight.

Paul J. Richards / APF / Getty Images

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his Republican counterpart, Sarah Palin, shake hands following Thursday night's debate.

However, there is praise for Palin's performance on Thursday night. She had a few talking points, mostly on energy and statistical numbers, about Biden and Sen. Barack Obama's histories that seemed to be well-rehearsed and well-planned. But that's it.

When it came down to it, Palin simply did not address the questions from the moderator. She sometimes avoided the questions altogether.

Biden, on the other hand, looked like a real vice president -- something America has not experienced for quite some time. He laid out a clear case for why the Obama-Biden ticket represents the change America needs. Their change does a complete turnaround from the eight years of Bush Doctrine.

Biden made it clear that the Obama-Biden administration will make the middle class a priority. He also said they have a plan in place to bring home the troops from Iraq safely and responsibly, and to restore America's leadership to the world.

Obama and Biden are our beacons of hope in this fearful and stressful time.
-- Brandon Melton, Spokane

Palin is the oil-industry candidate
As a woman, I was delighted to see Gov. Sarah Palin give a good speech during the vice-presidential candidates' debate. I was glad she didn't "collapse into an incomprehensible heap" -- a scenario recently posited by a Washington correspondent when pressed to describe a situation that could force Palin off the Republican presidential ticket.

Because she has proved herself comprehensible at the podium, we can now concentrate on what she is saying instead of how she is saying it.

For instance, as a result of Thursday's debate, I now understand that Palin was selected as the candidate of the oil industry. Her stated mission is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. She wants to lower taxes on an industry that made unprecedented profits, while we paid $4.50 a gallon for gas. Forget her story about how she stood up to big oil in Alaska. They didn't need the profit Alaska denied them because they were raking it in down here. And that investment has paid off big in putting Palin on the "maverick" ticket with Sen. John McCain.

Her "energy policy" would destroy natural areas and contribute to global warming without doing a single thing to make the United States energy independent. Moreover, one of the first gubernatorial acts of this "Country First" candidate was to sign a contract with a Canadian company to build an oil pipeline in Alaska.

Palin was well-coached and made a folksy delivery, but her politics are all about giving wealth to the wealthy and otherwise preserving the status quo.
-- Wendy Shook, Tukwila

Jeez Louise, Palin
While I watched the vice-presidential debate, I waited on the edge of my seat for "gee willikers." Imagine my disappointment when Gov. Sarah Palin left that one out. However, she came very close, and I appreciate her efforts.

It was painfully obvious that Palin had completed a crash course in the George Bush School of "Ain't-I-Just-Plain-Folk."

Isn't it odd that we're made to feel bad about expecting more from someone running for vice president? With all the substantive women politicians out there, it leaves me with just one thought: "Aww, shucks!"
-- Ricky Barnes, Seattle

Neither won the debate
Well, the great debate is over, and, essentially, we are where we were the day before the debate. Gov. Sarah Palin has shown that she can deliver a line in a folksy way similar to Ronald Reagan, and Sen. Joseph Biden has shown that he has a firm grasp of the facts.

During the debate, Palin repeatedly didn't answer the question asked and dove directly into the sound bite she was instructed to deliver.

Biden at least first answered the questions and then went about his mission of tying Sen. John McCain to President Bush.

Based on this, I can't determine a winner or loser. We're just back to where we were: Who will make the better president, and who will lead us in the direction that this country needs to go in?

I don't know if Thursday night's vice-presidential debate helped anyone make that decision. It sure didn't help change my mind one way or the other.
-- Robert Oberlander, Issaquah

Answer the questions asked, Palin
Gov. Sarah Palin sidestepped the point of having a debate by not answering the questions asked and talking about whatever else she felt like. She even said that she was going to do this very early in the debate, which would have been a good time for the moderator, Gwen Ifill, to put a stop to it.

Interviewers and moderators in the media need to remember that, while they are supposed to remain objective, they are supposed to keep to the rules. When Palin so willfully did not answer the questions asked, she broke the rules of the debate and should have been called on it.

I guess that is how it will work, as it has for the past eight years, if the McCain-Palin ticket wins in November. They'll break the rules, and everybody will be too polite to call them on it until it is too late.
-- David Comito, Seattle

Play on words
Who took de bait in Thursday night's vice-presidential white flag of surrender? I thought Sen. Joseph Biden looked Palin comparison.
-- Leo Shillong, Bellingham

Sound professional, GOP
I find it curious how the current Republican philosophy appears to believe that speaking in a folksy manner, such as using the words "betcha," "gonna," "folks," etc., is somehow an endearing and appropriate way to speak.

What in the world makes them think that? We've endured this dumbing-down of the Most Powerful Person in the World for the last eight years. I want someone in office who not only acts like a president (or vice president), but sounds like one.

No, you are not my next-door neighbors -- you're the ultimate representatives of this country. Please represent us with dignity and intelligence, and have the grace to sound like you possess both.
-- Karen Thompson, Port Angeles

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

A Sound Transit light-rail train scoots along the Tukwila section of track during recent testing.

Light-rail plan is a bad idea
Editor, The Times:
As an environmental leader for 35 years (I am the former president of four well-known environmental organizations) and a mass-transit rider for 40 years, I am embarrassed that some environmental groups have been duped by the false claims and distortions of Proposition 1 ["Proposition 1: a critical first step," Times, guest commentary, Sept. 30].

This proposal will not solve congestion. It will not solve global warming. It will not rejuvenate our economy. It will cost about $110 billion over 30 years.
First, light rail will have negligible impact on traffic congestion, as Metro's Environmental Impact Statement concedes.

Metro Transit, with a spider web of bus routes all over King County and more than 8,000 bus stops, has less than 5 percent of total rider trips per day. Light rail would add less than 20 stops on routes that are already served by express bus and commuter rail. Metro's own studies show that the effect on congestion would be negligible. King County Executive Ron Sims was originally a strong supporter of light rail but last fall concluded that it was a bad idea and recommended that a bond issue be defeated.

Second, Proposition 1 would have construction costs of $17.9 billion but would cost $110 billion by the time the bonds are paid off in about 30 years. Talk about giving your grandchildren something -- to pay for.
When the United States is facing a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and Washington state is facing a deficit of more than $3 billion in the next budget, taxpayers do not need this heavy tax burden for the next 30 years. By then, there will be more fuel-efficient cars, other modes of transportation and many better ways to spend $110 billion.
-- Norm Winn, Seattle

A 21st-century solution
It pains me to see the debate around Proposition 1 devolve into an argument about dollars instead of sense ["Reject Prop. 1's tax for light-rail expansion," editorial, Sept. 28]. The nation and our state are facing massive problems right now, from failing financial institutions to record energy prices. Many of these problems are a direct result of our 20th-century mindset, failing to find 21st-century solutions.

Sound Transit's Proposition 1 is a comprehensive plan that will update our outdated and inefficient transportation infrastructure to address the struggles we face today, as well as the unseen hurdles over the horizon.

The opponents of this plan are defenders of the status quo; rehashing the same arguments that have blocked multiple attempts over the decades to invest in transportation options for our region. Unfortunately it is the status quo which has led us to the precarious situation we face today.

On Nov. 4, voters will have a choice between the failing policies of the 20th century and the bright future the 21st-century promises. I hope, for the sake of the region, voters see the wisdom in passing Proposition 1.
-- David Kosmos, Seattle

Reject the proposal
Proposition 1 is nothing more than a greedy grab for public money to develop properties on main-city streets from Tacoma to Everett, and capitalize on higher square-footage rates.

Sound Transit sent out the bagmen to the local environs to engage in logrolling with the property-tax-hungry politicians, to enable developers to triple their money at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Puget Sound Regional Council is a logrolling exhibition that provided zero meaningful adversarial testing of the Sound Transit plan. Committee members ignored all adversarial testimony, and allowed paid-off environmental groups to continue to take part without addressing any possible conflicts of interest with Sound Transit payouts and their developer board members.

The proponents of Proposition 1 will not be honest with the public and tell them what the urban-village zealots are trying to accomplish; they want to build mass-transit corridors and move the public into them with carrot-and-stick social engineering.

Of course they have learned their lesson: Former Seattle City Council member Margaret Pageler and former King County Council member Cynthia Sullivan told the truth about the city's plans regarding transit congestion. Neither was re-elected.

Politicians like Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims and Gov. Christine Gregoire are careful not to make the same mistake as Pageler and Sullivan. They will never say what they are really trying to accomplish. They hope to get public money for developers to acquire gentrification of main-city thoroughfares, then ordinance the public into the gentrified corridor with lane-mile restrictions -- and other clever social-engineering tricks -- without disclosing their true intentions to the public. Their hope is that enough uneducated voters will flock to vote for Sen. Barack Obama, then vote for Proposition 1, and not know that they will be voting for a plan not just to get them out of their cars, but frustrate them until they leave their neighborhoods.

Seattle is corrupt and just can't seem to get enough public money to allow developers to triple their investments and acquire gentrification, which would enable the city, state and county to reap the financial benefits. Seattle is counting on fooling the public again.

Vote no on Proposition 1.
-- John Worthington, Renton

Seattle needs this transit backbone
The Times editorial against the Mass Transit Now campaign made one good point, but drew the wrong conclusion. We sure do need much more bus service right now. However, most of this need is for local -- not regional -- service.

Sound Transit's Proposition 1 is all about taking a big step beyond oil dependency, toward regional transportation based on renewable energy. A transit backbone of electrical light rail will be the key to getting around for a lot more people as climate catastrophes and gas prices accelerate over the next decade.

But the backbone of regional transit will be weak without the ribs of local transit. We need to double local bus service over the next decade. This means the state Legislature must authorize a new county tax.

And we're fed up with the state telling Sound Transit and the counties that it's either going to be sales tax or the highway. How about something creative like a vehicle carbon tax? Maybe even enough of one to roll back the sales tax.
-- Dick Burkhart, Seattle

Light rail isn't improbable
The Times editorial advocating against Proposition 1 left me mystified. According to The Times, the idea of Washingtonians commuting to work via light rail represents an "improbable view" of the future -- never mind that it's a reality for residents of cities like New York, Boston and Washington, D.C., whose rail systems took substantial time, effort and money to develop.

The idea that we can simply replace our petroleum-burning cars with environmentally friendly ones is a non sequitur, since light rail is principally advocated as a solution to the region's traffic congestion, not pollution -- although it will help. And the suggestion that buses will be "kicked out" by Proposition 1 is misleading, since the measure actually adds 100,000 hours of express bus service.

As our region's population continues to bloat, we will regret not adopting a long-range, multipronged approach to our traffic problems.
-- Francesco Forin, Bellevue

Look to the future
Reading The Times recycle so many tired, discredited arguments to oppose the proposed "Sound Transit 2," I felt like I was being transported back in time -- to a time when you could afford to ask, "What's in it for me right now?"

The Times says Proposition 1 doesn't focus enough on short-term needs (never mind that The Times never has such a concern when it comes to building highways). But isn't this region's current transportation mess the product of our having settled so long for instant-gratification fixes?

Instead of light rail, The Times wants a "spider web of service," aka, more buses. Well, we've been going with that approach for 30 years, and guess what? It doesn't work here, and it hasn't worked anywhere in the industrialized world.

Of course, The Times doesn't really want more buses. After all, "Most people don't want to get out of their cars." Actually, most people don't want to make themselves -- and others -- dependent on their cars and on being stuck in traffic.

That's the same traffic that won't be addressed one iota by all those fuels of the future The Times is so confident will magically appear in the same affordable abundance as oil.
-- Mitch Gitman, Seattle

Build a freeway on the ground
There are a whole lot of ideas circling around for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, [".'Choppway' plan for viaduct," Local News, Sept. 26]. All come down to the same three options, though: Highway underground, highway aboveground or highway in pedestrians' way (the no-freeway option fits in this category).

Here's another idea: Put a freeway on the ground and build a big pedestrian bridge over the whole thing. This hides the freeway from view, like the tunnel, but is less expensive, like the bridges.

In fact, it would be cheaper than the aerial-freeway options, because the pedestrian bridge wouldn't have to support the weight of cars and trucks. This bridge would perfectly match up with the uphill part of downtown, thanks to our hills.
-- Brian Schend, Bellingham

Hold candidates accountable for claims
I've just finished reading "The claims and the truth" [News, Sept. 27], regarding fact checking of statements made by Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama at the first presidential debate.

I find it astounding that anyone can sling any falsehoods they want at a debate, and there is no accountability as to the credibility of their statements.

It would be a great service to the voters of this country if, after each debate begins, there be a listing of false statements made by each candidate at the previous debate. We've suffered through too much delusional thinking and revisionist history from the Oval Office lately, and I'd like to hold those vying for new tenancy there to a reasonable standard of truth during the approval process.
-- Stephen Salamunovich, Seattle

McCain lied more
"The claims and the truth" article opens with the statement that "Both presidential candidates distorted the facts Friday in their first debate." This supposedly "fair and balanced" comment gives the impression that each man is equally guilty of lying in order to win the White House.

But those who don't just conclude "to hell with both of them" and stop reading right there learn that Sen. John McCain was guilty of warping the truth in four of the five issues examined. In other words, McCain lied four times as often as Obama.

In fact, Obama's only listed offense was when he "substituted 'can' for 'may' " in a comment McCain made about "muddl[ing] through in Afghanistan."

By contrast, McCain's claim that Obama voted "to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year" was condemned as " 'simply false' by the nonpartisan FactCheck.org."

McCain has proved he will lie and flip-flop on any issue to get into the Oval Office. That's some "straight talk" to which the rabid fans of the "maverick" are willfully deaf. America doesn't deserve McCain -- or, God help us, Sarah Palin -- as president.
-- Michael Spence, Tukwila

It was a tie
After viewing Friday night's presidential debate, I found myself shocked at what I had just watched ["First debate wasn't a game-changer," News, Sept. 28]. In my opinion, the debate couldn't have been more of a tie.

Sen. John McCain seems to be stuck in his past experiences, while Sen. Barack Obama is so focused on the future that he appears to care little about the past. This was evident in the language they each chose to use throughout the night. McCain repetitively said, "Sen. Obama doesn't understand," and Obama repeated that he agreed exactly with what McCain was saying.

I think we would all appreciate some forward thinking from McCain. He cannot be so focused on the past that he does not plan for the future. However, I also know that without a clear understanding of the past and without vast experience, there is a lack of understanding in how to approach the future. Therein lies the problem for Obama.

In my opinion, the debate was more of a series of defenses, stories, examples and promotion of their candidacy than a question-and-answer session. Many of the questions were not even answered, because the opponents continued to remind viewers of things they were first to accomplish or support, rather than give a clear idea of how our nation would function with either as our president.
-- Morgan Prospek, Bothell

McCain's behavior disrespectful
While watching the first presidential debate, I was disgusted at Sen. John McCain's behavior. To refuse to look Sen. Barack Obama in the eye -- or to even look at him at all -- and to smirk and sneer when Obama was speaking was belligerent, childish, disrespectful and rude.

We try to teach our children that this type of behavior is unacceptable, yet, here was a U.S. senator engaged in a debate for the highest elected office in our country, demonstrating such unprofessional behavior. Is this how McCain, if elected president of the United States, would treat heads of foreign governments, particularly those with whom we disagree?

How is this type of behavior going to win back our friends and allies and help return the United States to our former status in the eyes of the world community? McCain considers himself a maverick, but in reality he is a loose cannon with unstable behavior. McCain's attitude, personality and temperament make him unfit for the Office of the President of the United States.
-- Elaine Dimon, Mill Creek

Neither were prepared
The spirited debate between the presidential candidates -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama -- was all the more interesting in that neither candidate had had time for intensive practice. However, credit goes to Obama for being willing to go forward with the debate.

One McCain's arguments against Obama was that he "lacked experience" and "was not ready for the job" appears almost as an anachronism in view of his choice of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin as a "running mate."
-- Doreen W. Badger, Bellevue

Oval Office not the place for paranoia
I heard something in Friday's presidential debate that deeply disturbed me. I heard Sen. John McCain say that when he looked into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he saw the letters KGB. I also heard McCain say he does not want to sit down with the president of Iran because of threats toward Israel.

To me this sounds very paranoid. The chances of anyone wiping out another country are almost nil. But a paranoid U.S. president has attacked a nation before. We got into the war with Iraq because of paranoia over weapons of mass destruction. That paranoia resulted in the loss of life of thousands of our children.
I, for one, do not want another paranoid president.
-- Claire Gonder, Seattle

Obama's ideas strong
Last week brought more wild, hotheaded changes of direction from Sen. John McCain, ending with the non-stoppage of his campaign that led him to debate on Friday night anyway.

What America needs in time of crisis is less drama, not more. We need steady, clearheaded leadership, not cheap gimmicks.

Sen. Barack Obama's debate discussion laid out a clear plan for America that includes the middle class. Obama's ideas will strengthen our economy and create jobs. It's worth noting that McCain never mentioned the middle class once in his speech, while Obama made the middle class a clear focus in his responses.

Our domestic security is predicated on a strong economy at home. Obama has the new ideas to help solve these problems, and the debate in Mississippi made that perfectly clear to me as a viewer.
-- Jennifer Hauseman, Seattle

Thanks a lot, Rove
Political strategist Karl Rove has been busy. His tactics, introduced to the world in the 2000 debates and buffed to a shine in 2004, have now reached their zenith.

Sen. John McCain spent most of his time on Friday evening misrepresenting his own positions, lying about Sen. Barack Obama's record and platform and hurling accusations of naivete at his opponent. Obama was forced to spend much of his time refuting false claims, correcting misquotes and trying to explain his positions to the American people while being pelted with a barrage of nonsense.

What a waste.
-- Erin Byrne, Auburn

McCain heeded rides' warning
Anybody who questions why Sen. John McCain refused to look Sen. Barack Obama in the eye during Friday's debate has obviously never ridden the Indiana Jones Adventure ride in Disneyland, where one is warned, "Don't look into the eye of the idol!"
-- Doug Hartsock, Kirkland

It's no contest
How can Friday's meeting of presidential candidates be considered a debate? Why didn't Sen. John McCain look Sen. Barack Obama in the eyes and establish some kind of personal contact? He stood in his own world and showed what a shallow unprepared candidate he truly is.

McCain put forth his many anecdotes and gave Obama multiple put-downs, but he did not offer any resolutions to the financial crisis, health-care crisis or any other ongoing crisis in our country, except to say the war in Iraq is being won and that he'll keep it going.

There is no contest as to who the next president should be.
-- Roberta Hill, Edmonds

Republican debate tactics tiring
I don't know if it's a tactic or a strategy, but the Republican use of the derisive and dismissive laugh when losing an argument has grown stale.

Sen. John McCain used it so often in the debate that I feared his face would crack. Add the somewhat new tactic of interrupting as the time expires, thus, getting in the last word, and one has to conclude that there are no issues for McCain to run on.
-- Garth Culver, Snohomish

The Times editorial about the Western Climate Initiative's new cap-and-trade program failed to give Gov. Christine Gregoire due credit for her role in making the WCI and cap-and-trade a reality ["The hard part is getting started," Times, editorial, Sept. 25]. Gregoire, along with just four other governors, was one of the key architects of this plan.

The effects of climate change are already visible in Washington state -- just look at the horrific storms of last winter. So much of our state's industry and infrastructure relies on a healthy environment to succeed. If we don't continue to address climate change now, our future economic health is at risk.

This is something gubernatorial opponent Dino Rossi doesn't understand. He is still in denial about global warming. How will he continue our leadership in cap-and-trade programs if he still wants to debate whether emissions cause global warming?

It is imperative we have a governor who understands the threat climate change poses on our state's future. Gregoire's work in developing the Western Climate Initiative and its cap-and-trade program is just one example of her leadership on climate change. She deserves re-election.

-- Allison Rank, Seattle