Cabin owners are stewards of federal land

As described in The Times' article, families on Reclamation land who have had simple cabins 50 or more years now stand to lose them due to the new fee increase ["Families getting pushed out of cherished cabins," page one, Sept. 9]. Our experience with the Bureau of Reclamation is that of dealing with a heavy-handed bureaucracy whose hidden agenda is to remove all cabins from federal lands.

You will find cabin owners wonderful stewards of the land, and furthermore public access is not limited, as the general public has the right to use the waterfront on those leases. We have been working with the National Forest Homeowners and our congressional representatives to create a new method of valuation and fee establishment that would apply to all federal lands.

Hopefully this will become law in time to save those who cannot afford the new fee increases.

-- Bob McIntosh, Conconully Lakes Cabin Owners Association president, Renton

Cabins no sweetheart deal without renter's rights

I have talked to one of the people interviewed by Jonathan Martin for The Times article about families losing their Forest Service cabins, and the source assures me he emphasized several times that cabins on Forest Service land are there under special-use permits, not leases.

That is not a trivial distinction. Lease holders have rights Forest Service cabin owners can only dream of. We Forest Service cabin owners understood going in that the federal government would be our landlord, but the relationship is very one-sided. When they say, "jump," you have to ask, "How far?"

Regarding calling the cabins a sweetheart deal: If you project $1,400 for the life of the 20-year permit, that is $28,000 in fees to rent the land. Not exactly chump change, where you may or may not have power, phone, TV, paved roads, winter access, law enforcement or fire protection, to name just a few of the amenities city folk assume exist everywhere.

My cabin is in Northern California at Bucks Lake in the Plumas National Forest. Our fee increase is set to be 400 percent. There is something very wrong with an appraisal system that achieves a 400 percent increase in the middle of the most severe real-estate collapse since the Great Depression.

This is a real problem, affecting real families.

-- Mike Hoover, Reno, Nev.

A cougar removed while dangerous pit bulls are ignored

Did any one else see the dichotomy of these situations: A cougar living in its natural habitat, which happens to be near an urban area is hunted down, captured and moved to a more remote area because of the potential of the danger its presence presents ["Discovery Park cat gets treed and freed," page one, Sept. 7]. I am glad this happened, both for the people nearby and for the cougar itself.

Meanwhile, in another case in a different locale, five dogs who people reported and complained about ["Neighbors warned agency of dogs," NWWednesday, Sept. 9] and who had in the past threatened and intimidated people were basically ignored. Left until "real" injury was imposed.

Saying a response is made within 10 minutes of a reported attack is no comfort; in 10 minutes much of the damage is done. Walking our neighborhoods has become more and more dangerous thanks to dog owners who, I believe, acquire some dogs only to intimidate others.

-- Jan Broz, Redmond

In cougar relocation, a shining example for other states

Seattle and the communities surrounding Discovery Park should take pride in their calm, cautious and reasonable response to the cougar recently discovered in their vicinity. They did not panic nor did they demonize the danger the cougar presented.

We are very fortunate in Washington state to have a number of extremely experienced and well-trained biologists. As a nature and science writer, I have worked with these scientists and have written a number of articles so the rest of the country might become aware of their innovative work and findings.

They have studied the mountain lions in Washington state for many years, and their expertise was evident in their handling of this recent event. We are so fortunate to have a healthy population of these amazing cats. Very few states can claim this.

By agreeing to relocate rather than kill this cougar, Seattle has shown how humans can coexist with wildlife. Washington state must set the example for the nation by making every effort to preserve its wildlife treasures by supporting the work of these biologists.

-- Laura Bowers Foreman, Issaquah

Lay on fines for negligent pet ownership

Your story about the dogs' brutal attack on the two mares ["Mares killed after dogs attack," NWMonday, Sept. 7] turned my blood cold.

However, I disagree with the euthanizing of the dogs. I think they should have been split up for adoption to responsible pet owners.

Now, I'm waiting for the happy ending: I want to hear about this negligent knucklehead of a neighbor getting a massive fine for the lives of the mares, another hefty fine for the injuries to the colts and their heartbreaking loss and another huge fine for the pain and suffering of Patricia Clark. The court should demand that Negligent Knucklehead build a eight-feet-tall fence between Clark's property and his.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about these things happen because our courts don't crack down and make the fines and punishment stiff enough. Throw the book at 'em!

-- Lee Ryan, Des Moines

In energy bill, include funding to save pika, other species at risk

The pika is but one of many animals that may become endangered due to changes brought about by global warming ["High-country icon in peril?" page one, Aug. 21]. Rising temperatures, changing rainfall and disrupted snowfall patterns are also impacting the Northwest's salmon and native birds.

The same issues driving pika to possible extinction are also threatening wildlife in national parks across the country. The National Parks Conservation Association recently issued a report suggesting management strategies to alleviate the stress on animals in parks.

Strategies include protecting critical habitat, developing corridors to allow wildlife access to new habitat as their current ranges become unsuitable and reducing additional stresses from pollution, invasive plants and disease.

We urge Congress to support setting aside modest funding in the energy bill for projects on our public lands that will help animals adapt to climate change. We need to preserve our national park heritage and animals, including the pika, so our children and grandchildren can also enjoy those "brave squeaks."

-- Sean Smith, National Parks Conservation Association policy director, Seattle

Boy's big catch nothing to celebrate

I was disheartened to read the celebratory tone used in your story and accompanying "Good day, bad day" photographs about the 150-pound sixgill shark caught near Burien ["Boy's 150-pound fish tale is true," NWTuesday, Aug. 11].

Celebrating this catch does a huge disservice to the efforts to restore and recover a rapidly declining Puget Sound ecosystem, a nationally significant issue The Times has covered frequently.

It also does a disservice to shark-conservation efforts under way around the globe. Although the shark was released, and The Times included information about the decline of the sixgill shark in Puget Sound, the celebratory tone was unmistakable.

I am saddened to think this article will inspire young boys throughout the region to go shark hunting in hopes of getting a spread in your paper. It will be a very good day when the sixgill shark and other species in decline in Puget Sound are recovered.

But I remain highly skeptical about this outcome if the media remains steeped in outdated and harmful modes of thinking.

-- Hilary Culverwell, Bellingham

Ban bags, don't just tax them

Many people, my wife and I included, would strongly support banning plastic bags but voted against the ill-conceived measure we were offered in Referendum 1.

A ban would require shoppers to bring or buy reusable bags or otherwise carry purchases in their arms.

Longer checkout times and ugly checkout disputes in our view seemed destined to ultimately doom needed regulation. In any case, this loss should not be interpreted to mean that Seattle voters want to continue using disposable plastic or paper bags or wouldn't adopt a more sensible regulation.

-- Charles and Wendy Ordine, Seattle

Poor marketing may have lost bag campaign

Seattle missed the marketing and terminology boat with pitching a bag "tax."

I just got back from Austria and Germany and found that when you grab a plastic bag there, you have to pay for it. That changes people's habits in a hurry.

It's not a tax, it's the cost of doing business or "cleaning up the bag mess."

Just require all bags to cost 25 cents as a cleanup fee, and you'll be surprised how many folks starting bringing their own.

-- Andrew Nemethy, Adamant, Vt.

In shut parks, a lost connection to earth

Editor, The Times:

A great sadness filled me as I read of the possibility that 39 King County parks may be shut down due to recent economic woes ["39 King County parks may be shut down," page one, Aug. 18].

Alas, what a devastating picture of national economic and global policies over these past eight years coming home to roost in our local neighborhoods, where there is little money for the needs of ordinary citizens but billions of dollars still handily available nationally for wars and corporations.

What will become of us if our green spaces are inaccessible? What will become of our children, many of whom have little access as it is to experiencing the joys of running across an open field or lying on the sweet green grass to look up through leafy trees at clouds against a blue sky?

How will our young ones learn to love the Earth so they grow up to become citizens who will care for it?

-- Jackie Leksen, Lynnwood

No sense in expensive light rail, closed parks

There are many, but rarely have I seen a better example of a dangerous malady that has been sweeping this state and country. A recent Seattle Times headline read, "39 King County parks may be shut down."

At the same time, Seattle opened a $2.5 billion light-rail line. This is the most expensive light rail ever constructed, costing $180 million per mile or $10,000 per Seattle household. Now, the operations of the train must be subsidized by taxpayers with $10 per ride if the number of riders estimated by Sound Transit are realized, which is doubtful. Further, Sound Transit is planning to spend many billions more to expand this ineffective rail system.

This indicates an unconscionable disregard for community priorities and the placing of politics and ideology ahead of the community's greater good. There are no winners but many victims.

Those who need transit and have no alternative will pay more and have less service, taxpayers will subsidize mostly people who have an alternative and the more than 90 percent of travelers who use the roads will continue to experience increasing congestion because money wasted on rail systems will not improve congestion or pollution.

When will we connect the dots between this stupidity and elected officials?

-- Jim Skaggs, Gig Harbor

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

Vote against Ref. 1 a vote against liberal agenda

Editor, The Times:

It's the same strategy. Just like the right-wing attack on President Obama isn't really about health care, the vote against a tax on plastic bags was really a vote against the liberal agenda, specifically environmentalism in Seattle.

It's what the Republicans will call a backlash against that liberal agenda.

But really it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's just more dangerous Republican misinformation on how to reduce our waste and pass on the goal of a better place to our kids. The only goal Seattle Republicans have is winning the next election, at any cost.

Republicans seem to believe global warming and other environmental dangers don't exist anyway. There's no real reason to be environmentally conscious in the minds of the Republicans.

-- Doug Morrison, Seattle

Bag tax failed because it wasn't evenly applied

I take offense at Brady Montz's assertion ["City voters don't buy shopping bag charge," News, Aug. 19] that Referendum 1 failed because big business spent more than the Green Bag Campaign 5-to-1.

My friends and I voted against the 20-cent bag tax because it was arbitrary and discriminatory. Some businesses, but not all, had to pay the 20-cent bag tax. Grocery stores, food banks and convenience stores had to pay. Large mega-stores like Target, Sears, Fred Meyer and Macy's were exempt.

The tax would save us from all those non-biodegradable plastic bags but would also tax all those biodegradable paper bags. If the green-bag supporters want a law that will pass then they should outlaw all plastic bags, leaving only paper and reusable bags as alternatives.

Do not write a law, like the one that failed, penalizing only certain businesses and service organizations assisting the poor.

-- Suzanne M. Banchero, Seattle

Despite failed tax, quit plastic bags cold turkey

Many voters felt the plastic bag fee was too nanny-ish. Understandable, but still, the environmental problem remains.

Here's an idea. Judging from the massive sums they spent to defeat this measure, the plastic producers clearly expected plastic-bag sales to take a huge dive if the fee was approved.

Let's all see if we can make that happen anyway by resolutely swearing off plastic bags at the grocery. Cold turkey.

Let's develop a culture in which those who regularly use plastic grocery bags are assumed to be either self-absorbed people like those who talk too loudly on their cellphones or people for whom reusable bags are genuinely beyond their means.

We can roll our eyes at the former and empathize with the latter. But for ourselves, let's do what's right, even without the official prompt. The inconvenience will be minimal.

After all, if you've got a life, plastic bags can't be a very big part of it.

-- William R. Andersen, Seattle

Bag vote hijacked by well-funded opponents

Thank you Seattle for once again proving that big money buys politics. With fliers, ads and phone calls flooding the residents of this "enlightened" city, how can anyone possibly say defeating the bag tax was the public's will?

If the proponents and opposition had been evenly funded, one could claim it was the public's will. But the way it was done proves otherwise. The poor didn't win -- the chemical industry did. Everyone else lost.

What a bunch of suckers we are!

-- Jack M. Pedigo, Seattle

Like in health-care reform, public is the loser in bag-tax defeat

They've done it again. In voting down the bag tax, people have allowed themselves to be duped by disinformation, lies and distortions, becoming stooges for the oil and chemical industries and not realizing they already pay for plastic bags directly and indirectly in many ways.

The same thing has happened with health-care reform, with people allowing themselves to become pawns of the insurance companies out to protect their profits at the expense of us all.

Some undoubtedly just hate the president and will do anything to bring him down. Either way, they're working against themselves.

And in voting for Mr. Anti-Tunnel, Mike McGinn, they're jeopardizing the chance of a lifetime to make Seattle one of the magnificent waterfront cities in the world.

What a shame it all is.

-- Tim Walsh, Seattle

In clunkers program, forgetting the three Rs

It seems people remember only two of the three R's: Reduce (what's that?), Reuse (huh?), Recycle (aah, there we go).

Many people seemed to have adopted a mindset like this: "I never reduce anything I consume, or reuse old but still workable things, but I throw that empty gallon in the green bin every time, so I can feel self righteous about my environmental efforts."

This same flawed mindset about helping the environment by recycling while not reducing or reusing is as flawed as the Cash for Clunkers program. People trade in perfectly good used cars for newer ones with better gas mileage, and although there is a benefit to better gas mileage, it doesn't offset the bad environmental impact that comes with destroying a good used car that could be reused.

This is simply a taxpayer-funded bailout of the auto industry that ultimately is going to cause a short boom followed by another hard bust. And the low-income folks, or just those trying to not live off credit like me and my family, now have fewer good used cars on the market to choose from, and with less supply there is more demand and higher prices.

Sure this will help the auto industry, but what about the auto-repair industry, which now has fewer used cars to maintain? People forget these government actions that help one group always hurt another group.

A better alternative is HR 1768, which would give tax rebates to those trading in for more fuel-efficient cars. This would allow those who trade in to keep more of their own money through a tax rebate, while not causing the taxpayer to be billed for an environmentally unfriendly program. It would also give those with less money more used cars to choose from.

-- Seth Copeland, Edmonds

Before a bag fee, provide incentives to recycle instead

Editor, The Times:

I find it interesting that Seattle wants to impose plastic-bag fees, yet there has been absolutely no push for deposits for plastic or glass bottles or for soda and beer cans.

Over the past three years, I have recycled more than 82,000 aluminum cans, of which more than 75,000 I have personally removed from the roadsides here in South King County, primarily in the Renton and Maple Valley areas.

What really bothers me is the fact I have left behind approximately 6,000 glass bottles and well more than 12,000 to 13,000 plastic bottles during this time frame.

Keep in mind that deposits are required for all of these items in Idaho, Oregon, California and other states and as a direct result you have far less litter.

Cash refunds would guarantee much cleaner roadside areas, and at the same time, provide those in need with additional and needed income.

Why are we spending our tax dollars cleaning up our roads? At 5 cents a can and bottle, if I had recycled everything I've mentioned, I would have made around $5,000.

-- Ron Freese, Renton

If bags are so bad, why don't we ban them?

I don't live in Seattle, so I don't get to vote on the proposed bag fee/tax. I do work at a retail store in Seattle, however.

I am quite confused at the idea of charging a fee as a disincentive to use bags. If the bags are so bad, ban them. If they don't warrant a ban, put the community's resources to use elsewhere.

It may technically be a "fee," but it sure feels like a terribly regressive "tax."
On the other hand, I'd gladly fork over a dollar or more per bag if it meant the streets would be properly cleared of snow and ice in the winter.

-- Shaun Anthony, Renton

Complicating grocery transactions an effective plan

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker's assessment ["Bag tax would be a lot of hassle with little environmental impact," Opinion, guest column, Aug. 5] of the proposed bag tax misses a few points.

Yes, it's great most Seattleites don't litter, but that does not lead to the conclusion that there is no bag scourge. Any plastic that becomes waste is a scourge. Those who are trying to connect the dots between consumer behavior and increased waste plastic know this.

I agree that "the tax will solve no environmental problem" and will "complicate a million grocery transactions in the city daily." That's the point.

Waste-management problems may be best addressed by means of consumer inconvenience. If consumers can embrace recycling their newspapers, glass bottles and aluminum cans, providing for our own grocery-bagging needs should be an easy next step.

Look around you. See any scarcity of backpacks, canvas bags and other reusable bags? I still agree with their conclusion that if we want to improve the environment via taxation there are better choices.

Another way to get people's attention is to stop offering them bagging service. Make an announcement. Pick a day. Let them squirm a few days, and they'll pick up a bagging habit faster than a cockroach escaping a glaring light bulb.

-- Marcella Van Oel, Seattle

Making change by shifting attitudes

I'm a big fan of the plastic-bag tax. Why? Because it will eliminate a reflexive waste of resources. Currently, the automatic assumption at most stores is that you want your items bagged.

Buy a single pencil? It goes in a bag. Yes, you can decline the bag, and I do.

But I've got to be fast! One second of distraction and I've got another annoying plastic bag. I want to flip the assumption around, and I believe the bag tax will do that.

I'd love the conversation to flip from me saying, "Ack! No bags!" to the cashier saying, "Do you wish to purchase bags today?"

Shifts in attitude do matter. Let's move to a society in which the least wasteful option is the norm, rather than the exception. The bag tax may not be the biggest step or the most meaningful step, but it is the next step.

We have to walk before we can run. Though I suppose we could bike or bus. Whatever transit mode you choose, remember your reusable bags!

Vote yes on Seattle Referendum 1.

-- Karen Crisalli Winter, Seattle

Lands commissioner
should stop logging plan

We appreciate Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark's thoughtful commentary on protecting Puget Sound ["We must raise the standards bar to protect Puget Sound," Opinion, Aug. 10]. But we wonder why he fails to apply the same standard to the last great coastal forest remaining on the shores of Puget Sound.

Blanchard Mountain, in Skagit County, encompasses 5,000 acres of Departmetn of Natural Resources-managed forestland in a spectacular setting between two of the state's fastest-growing urban areas. Much of Blanchard is roadless, and its naturally generated forest is well on the way to becoming old-growth.

It is exactly the kind of forest that scientists say we should be setting aside to sequester carbon as we tackle climate change.

It's the only place on the entire rim of the Sound where threatened marbled murrelets nest in big trees close to saltwater. A wide variety of raptors migrate through the area. Most of the fish in its lakes and streams are listed as threatened or endangered.

Blanchard's summit, at nearly 2,400 feet, is the highest in the Chuckanut Mountains. The area is dubbed the "Issaquah Alps by the Sea" and is the most heavily visited, year-round trails destination north of Seattle. Tens of thousands of hikers roam Blanchard's 20-mile trail system annually, enjoying panoramic views of the San Juan Islands and three mountain ranges. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail, signed into law by President Obama in March, traverses through the heart of Blanchard Mountain -- across areas the DNR, and apparently Commissioner Goldmark, are determined to log.

The DNR's own studies agree the area should be protected for wildlife and recreation. Instead, the agency is defending plans to log two-thirds of the mountain and build miles of new logging roads -- despite road failures as recent as last winter.

The Chuckanut Conservancy won a court ruling last year that required the agency to prepare an environmental-impact statement before carrying out its logging plan. Instead, the DNR has appealed the ruling and is spending scarce taxpayer dollars defending its controversial plan.

As a Skagitonian concerned about the future of both Puget Sound and Blanchard Mountain, I'm disappointed that the "conservation-minded" lands commissioner we thought we elected last fall has elected to defend the logging plan of his predecessor.

-- Frank Eventoff, Chuckanut Conservancy, Bow

Phony environmentalism

The proposed grocery-bag fee is another example of the feel-good, phony environmentalism for which our beloved Seattle is, alas, famous. The refrigerators we use to keep our food fresh use more energy in a couple of hours than is used to make all the grocery bags we use in a year.

"Just keep a bag in the car" means, for those of us with that quaint thing known as a family, "just keep eight or 10 bags in the car." We can't stuff all our weekly shopping in a couple of canvas bags like all the condo-dwelling singles who live around the block from Whole Foods.

Not to mention the irony of advising people to keep their canvas bags in a petroleum-fueled vehicle.

It's one thing to try to get rid of non-biodegradable plastic bags -- fine by me -- but paper bags?

Since we have that family thing going on at our house, we have a lot to recycle. We fill a (recyclable) paper grocery bag up each day.

I'm not disposed to carry a nondisposable recycling tub up and down a couple of flights of stairs each day, nor am I disposed to pay for recyclable bags when I get them for free now.

More stuff will probably go in the trash. Who knows, I may burn more energy and go grocery shopping in Shoreline.

It's called a "perverse effect" and it's a common result of poorly thought-out legislation.

-- Steven Wangsness, Seattle

Punishment for folks without cars

Bag tax, bag fee, bag heist: Whatever they call it, my take on it is it's one more way of punishing me -- and others like me -- for not owning an automobile.

I'm sure it's an unintentional punishment so perhaps some explanation is in order.

If you have to take your groceries home long distances either on foot or by bus -- in my case it is usually a combination -- those plastic bags are a godsend. I usually get a double bag so it doesn't bust and spill munchies all over the sidewalk, so if the silly law passes I'll probably have to pay twice.

I can hear the chorus from here: "Get a reusable, eco-friendly bag!" Sorry friends, that's just not an option. I'd have to carry the ecobag around all day in my backpack and there's usually way too much stuff in there already.

Am I selfishly putting my own interests before those of Nature? Well maybe, but I figure I'm doing more for the environment by almost never driving than the folks who drive their groceries home every night in their road-clogging, oil-burning, greenhouse-gas emitting cars. And yeah, I find it just a little bit galling that when some of them vote for the bag tax, they'll congratulate themselves on having done their little bit to save Mother Earth.

-- Andre Duval, Seattle

Don't stop with tax, ban plastic bags entirely

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker ["Bag tax would be a lot of hassle with little environmental impact," Opinion, guest column, August 5] just don't get it.

Every piece of plastic we make will be on this planet for the rest of time. Plastic does not biodegrade quickly. It can only be transformed into something that is not plastic by burning it, which opens a whole host of environmental consequences.

Yes, most Seattleites collect their plastic bags for recycling. However, plastic bags cannot truly be recycled. Most of Seattle's plastic bags end up shipped to China where they are burned. This is not recycling.

As for their claim that marine mammals are not being harmed by plastic bags, Nickerson and Rucker need to spend some time reading about the Pacific Gyre ["Giant vortex of floating trash swirling in Pacific," CloseUp, August 4], where billions of pieces of plastic refuse are collecting into a mass estimated to be twice the size of Texas.

We have no idea what the repercussions of this garbage patch are going to be. It may not be killing the mammals yet, but it is already killing birds and turtles.

I wish we weren't voting on a bag fee either. I wish plastic bags had just been banned.

-- Kimberly Christensen, Seattle

On my bike ride, 11 bags are proof of plastic problem

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker must live in a parallel universe inhabited only by economists. Which Seattle do they stroll the streets and parks of in order to declare there isn't a plastic-bag litter problem? Not the same Seattle in which I just completed a bike ride on the trail down to Golden Gardens Park -- I counted 11 plastic bags along the way.

Maybe 11 isn't sufficient to constitute the litter problem Rucker and Nickerson dismiss. One can argue the bag tax both ways, but please don't tell me there isn't any plastic-bag litter.

I invite them to come out to Ballard from Montana and help pick up the trash -- since it doesn't exist, it should be easy.

-- Eric Lucas, Ballard

Basic economics backs up bag fee

In regard to the article, "Would city's bag charge be fee or tax? Depends on which way you lean" [page one, August 4], an important point seems to be missing from the debate about whether to charge consumers for plastic bags: They are already charged!

However, the price is hidden, rolled into the cost of everything consumers buy at the store. Basic economic principles indicate that such hidden costs should be put out into the open so consumers are confronted with the costs in each transaction and can better adjust their purchasing behavior.

Additionally, basic economic principles indicate the price of a plastic bag should reflect any costs not covered in the purchase price of the bag -- such as the cost to remove plastic bags from city streets.

Whether called a fee or a tax, I support Referendum 1 because it incorporates these principles.

-- Mark Daniel, Seattle

Rove would be pleased at some liberals' opposition to bag tax

How I wish I could have a beer with Karl Rove and talk to him about the great Seattle bag-fee debate. He must be happier than he's been in nine months.

He has a whole new group of allies now -- Jan Drago, Danny Westneat, the people at Central Area Motivation Program and all the other mush-minded liberals who are lining up to support the plastics industry.

It's brilliant, really. Rove understands that, unlike the neocons, liberals have never been able to think beyond next week. You can pillage and poison the entire world as long as you don't cause any minor inconvenience to one of their pet constituencies, like the poor.
Combine this with a few dittohead talking points, and you have a bright future for the corporate rape of the world.

Rove must be kicking himself for not having thought of this strategy himself.

-- James Freudiger, Seattle

Ban telephone books, not grocery bags

Seattle should ban telephone books instead of grocery bags. When was the last time anyone used a phone book? And yet they pile up everywhere.

-- Kris Sundberg, Mercer Island

An invasion of property rights in new tree-cutting rules

I do not like the tone of the new tree-cutting rules ["Tree-cutting rules to get more strict in Seattle," NWTuesday, August 4]. City Council President Richard Conlin is quoted as saying something about "our urban trees." That may be true for trees in parks and parking strips, but the trees on my property aren't "our" trees, they are "my" trees.

I have close to 50 trees on my property in West Seattle. I selected them, I paid for them, I dug the planting holes, I pay for the water at third-tier summer rates, I fertilize, I pay my gardener to prune, transplant or remove as I choose.

Some of my trees have been in the ground since the late ' 80s and are pushing 20 years old. If I decide I don't like their appearance or growth habits or there is another type of tree I want to grow instead, it is my choice what to do with them.

My garden is my art project -- it doesn't belong to the city. If I sell my property, it is the right of the new owners to decide if they want to continue our style of gardening. This is a private decision, and the city has no say in it. Some people don't like shade or trees hiding their houses.

The city of Seattle should put its own house in order and take care of its own trees. City Light crews still butcher trees to accommodate power lines; recycle trucks and garbage trucks routinely snag and tear branches of parking-strip trees in our neighborhood; trees in public spaces are frequently underwatered and ungroomed; the madronas in Lincoln Park are diseased and need thinning and removal of dead limbs; the Kwanzan cherry trees in the median on Admiral Way have been removed and replanted at least four times in the past two decades by street crews.

These sins against city trees are just the ones in my own neighborhood. Multiply that many times and city crews could be busy for years taking care of what they already have.

-- Kathy Schwartz, Seattle

Saving trees or letting government go unchecked?

Your headline regarding saving trees in Seattle is misleading and downright bad journalism. The new resolution, not yet a law, will allow the following, if passed into law: "... the Department of Planning and Development] may permit exceptions to this prohibition when evidence is presented that development of the site would be substantially precluded or prohibited or when documentation is provided by a licensed or accredited professional that the health of the tree would be ignorantly undermined as a result of construction."

This is a loophole that not only makes certain trees will lose out in any development case, it also creates a situation of government powers that are unchecked. If the DPD decides so, then any tree may be removed for development at any time, based on this clause.

You should do some investigative writing, not just promote what those in power want us to believe.

-- Thomas Erdmann, Seattle

Convert clunker program to make natural gas cars

Instead of giving car buyers $4,500 to buy a gasoline-powered, fuel-efficient car, spend the money on converting existing new cars to natural gas.

That way we put more cars on the road that burn a fuel -- natural gas -- made in the U.S.A. instead of oil from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iraq, or someplace where there is an oil war.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

A call for compassion in 'cash for clunkers'

While the "cash for clunkers" has been a huge success for the automobile industry, I think it's important to point out not everyone got an opportunity to trade in their old car for a nice new one. Specifically, someone who is recently widowed.

My best friend died in April, and his wife dutifully had the registration on his 1999 Cadillac transferred to her name. She recently made the trek to a dealership in Kirkland to trade it in on a new Chevy Aveo only to find out she hadn't "owned the car for a year."

She pointed out that while the car's title had been in her husband's name, the insurance was in both of their names, and she had his death certificate and all of the other supporting documentation showing the car belonged to the family for more than four years.

She called the government's hotline, which confirmed she indeed did not qualify because she had not owned the car for the required 12 months.

It seems a shame that in the rush to put money into the car companies' bank accounts, those who drafted this bit of pork couldn't have found it in their hearts to include those who have recently been dealt a tough blow in life and who could probably use a break now more than most.

-- Randy Carl, Kent

Clunkers rebates too high for small mileage improvement

The "cash for clunkers" program is obviously popular and an unequivocal boon to automobile dealers and Americans who want to unload their low-value gas guzzlers.
But the program is not nearly as effective as it could be -- as it should be -- in producing environmental gains with this generous subsidy.

Before we pour billions of more tax dollars into this program, the U.S. Senate should seize the opportunity to elevate the fuel-efficiency standards for clunker trades to qualify for a subsidy. Buyers have been getting $3,500 rebates for buying new vehicles that get as few as four miles per gallon more than their clunkers. And buyers have been getting a maximum $4,500 rebate for new cars and trucks that get an extra 10 miles per gallon.

This program needs to be recalibrated to provide a better return on benefits to energy security and the environment.

-- Andrew Prieditis, Seattle

Looming disaster in the grocery checkout line

Editor, The Times:

Rather than a fee or a tax, I think the proposed bag charge will be a logistic nightmare.
I keep reusable totes in the trunk of my car and take them with me into the store most of the time, so I'm not too worried about the implications of this program on my personal grocery bill. I do, however, remember the times when I forgot to request paper and watched as a young bagger placed an array of plastic bags containing one to four items each into my cart.

How will this fee/tax be charged? Will the checker have to wait until all the bags are packed, count them, add the result to the bill and then let the customer pay? How will the lines in the store be affected? Will the people waiting in the lines with their canvas bags stand patiently? How will the poor checkers -- those people on the front lines -- be treated because of all this?

I think it's a bad idea that will become an even worse practice.

-- Laurie Boatsman, Lake Forest Park

At co-op store, a lesson in shopping bags

Madison Market, one of the oldest cooperative grocery stores in Seattle, charges all customers 10 cents if they wish to have a large plastic bag at the checkout counter. And these plastic-bag sales are very slow, since most customers already have the good sense to bring their own cloth bags.

Madison Market quietly leads the way as an isle of tranquillity in Seattle's latest tempest in a teapot where the burning issue seems to be: Is it a fee or a tax?

I will vote to reject the new fee/tax because the business model at Madison Market proves that informed shoppers can handle the plastic-bag controversy quite well -- without governmental intervention.

-- Virgil Howard, Seattle

Misleading claims from American Chemistry Council

I question the American Chemistry Council's motives in providing $1.4 million in funding toward stopping the Seattle bag tax.

This lobbying organization provides partial information on issues impacting member companies' earnings. It has funded limited studies on the use of BPA, an estrogen mimic, in plastic bottles and containers. In the past year, independent scientific panels have examined all studies on BPA's human health risks and noted the inadequate design of the ACC-funded studies, making them outliers that downplay BPA's risk.

Other incomplete ACC studies claim little harm to the environment and energy use from plastic-bag manufacture, use and recycling. The focus should be on a complete life-cycle analysis, including source reduction, something the ACC never mentions.

Source reduction -- making fewer bags to begin with -- would mean less use of raw materials and energy in manufacture, less energy used in collecting and transporting bags for recycling and no energy or factories needed for remanufacturing.

The ACC campaign and sometimes The Seattle Times' columns have focused on the fee's impact on the poor. Seattleites are creative folks -- they can find ways to help people keep track of their reusable totes.

Seattle's tax is simply an opportunity to show leadership in benefiting the environment.

-- Lee Magid, Gig Harbor

The poor should have no problem handling the bag tax

Republicans say Democrats fail to encourage personal responsibility. A recent column ["Who's left holding the bag fee," NWWednesday, July 29] by Danny Westneat provides a perfect example.

CAMP, the Central Area Motivation Program, joined the chemical industry in opposing a plastic-bag fee because it says the tax would adversely impact poor people. It's just too much to ask that poor people remember a bag when they shop, and so they will get charged for them. That's the reasoning -- from a "motivation" program.

It took me months to get used to bringing bags when I shop, but given a little time, even harried old dogs can master new tricks. My tricks all aim to get around forgetfulness and inconvenience.

First, I have a plastic grocery bag or two comes folded into little triangles in the bottom of my purse.

Second, I use a bag donated by a nonprofit that tucks inside itself and clips onto my bicycle.

Third, I leave canvas bags prominently near my front door where I get annoyed enough at tripping over them that I put them in the trunk.

And finally, I locate bag-recycling bins at my grocery stores.

It's time to stop the utter condescension that says harried poor people can't learn new tricks, too.

-- Valerie Tarico, Seattle

Seattle lagging behind foreign cities on bag-use reduction

According to the National Resources Defense Council, Seattle is the most sustainable city in the nation, a title we are proud of. We have many accomplishments on the green front, but in one striking area, we are far behind the rest of the world: disposable-bag use.

The average American uses 600 disposable bags every year, meaning we as a city use 360 million bags annually. As we continue this wasteful habit, the density of plastic in the North Pacific Garbage Patch has doubled from 1998 to 2008, and 100,000 marine mammals continue to die every year because of plastic.

Elsewhere in the world, after discovering severe flooding was due to storm drains blocked with plastic bags, Bangladesh banned them in the capital in 2002. That same year, Ireland placed a fee on plastic bags, causing bag use to drop by 90 percent in the first month.

Seattle has an opportunity to join the rest of the world and prove our title as the most sustainable U.S. city by passing Referendum 1, the 20-cent fee on disposable bags. We cannot call ourselves environmentalists and use 360 million disposable bags every year.

-- Ursula Sandstrom, Seattle

Nothing but idiocy in 'cash for clunkers'

It is astounding that the Obama administration would join Congress in lauding and rescuing one of the most poorly planned and thought-out programs ever.

I voted for President Obama on the hope that yes, maybe "we can." He seemed so authentic, and I was especially heartened by his oft-stated concern for environmental issues.

This "cash for clunkers" gimmick, however, is irresponsible and totally contrary to the goal of developing a future energy policy that is not based solely on fossil fuels.

It rewards greedy car owners who can turn in their oldest car, get a brand new one that makes just a couple more miles per gallon and pocket $4,500 from the National Treasury. Now they can add a high-end hybrid to their shiny new Lexus and claim to be green.

Did it not occur to Congress and the president that the neighborhood meth addict can now turn in his pile of junk for a nice new ride and plenty of money to feed his addiction?

This is nothing more than a free gift to the greedy and the car dealerships under the guise of doing something to combat global warming.

Just brilliant. Brilliant idiocy.

-- Richard P. Champlin. Seattle

Government can't handle 'cash for clunkers' -- or health care

President Obama's "cash for clunkers" program is well named.

Under the program, you can buy a new car and receive credit up to $4,500 of taxpayer money if your new car gets at least four gallons per mile more than the trade-in. Once the trade is made, the trade-in car is crushed, even though there are thousands of hard-working citizens who would love to have it.

The government estimated that the $1 billion funding would cover the program for four months, but it went broke after four days. The government is in total confusion as to how to administer it.

After changing its position three times, Obama's administration proposed an additional $2 billion.

And this is the same government that wants to administer its proposed massive health-care program.

Good luck, America. You will need it!

-- Richard King, Seattle

No faith in government health care after clunkers debacle

Congress gives us "cash for clunkers" and four days later suspends it, leaving buyers and dealers in limbo over the weekend. These same Congressmen promise we can keep our health insurance and doctor with their government option. Incredible.

-- Phillip A. Scott, Maple Valley

Don't insult the poor's intelligence in bag-tax debate

Editor, The Times:

Central Area Motivation Program, or CAMP, opposes the 20-cent bag tax because, it says, the poor just aren't able to remember to bring bags when they shop. The rationale? ["Who's left holding the bag fee," Danny Westneat's column, July 29.] The program handed out reusable bags, told clients to bring them the next time they came and most clients returned without them. The excuses? They forgot the bags. Or someone stole their bag. Or the bag got "lost" in a move.

CAMP does tell its clients what hours it is open. CAMP doesn't stay open all the time in case clients "forget"; if the client shows up during the closed hours, they don't get served.

CAMP tells clients to bring their own bags, and when they forget -- it gives them free food -- and free plastic bags. What's wrong with this picture? CAMP could have charged them 20 cents for a bag, told them to find some sort of a bag and return or let them figure out how to carry the food without a bag. I can guarantee clients would learn really quickly to bring their own bags.

Do these clients forget their wallets? Their shoes? Their cigarettes? No, no and no because the first time they did, they had to do without. Nobody jumped up to hand them free replacements. People learn to be responsible when there are consequences for being irresponsible.

CAMP insults the intelligence of its clients to claim that because they are poor, they aren't able to -- and shouldn't have to -- learn basic lessons in responsibility.

-- Laura Billington, Maple Valley

Don't trust coalition against the bag tax

My July 30 mail brought an expensive brochure from the so-called Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax, which, according to SourceWatch.org, is a front for the Washington Food Industry, 7-Eleven and some lobbyists for the plastic industry.

The brochure rehearsed the same insulting arguments: The tax will hurt the poor (who presumably are too stupid to buy a $1 cloth bag that will pay for itself in a week), is filled with loopholes (you prefer a stricter tax? Bring it on!) and will result in bureaucracy and cost. That's very public-spirited of the plastics industry. Care to spend some of your money cleaning up the Pacific Trash Vortex, the continent-sized plastic dump that floats in the North Pacific? Didn't think so.

Please don't be fooled by this condescending, mean-spirited, shortsighted and ultimately evil campaign. The tax is a very sensible way to gradually change the behavior of Seattle shoppers and stem the tide of garbage that we're heaping on the Earth.

-- Charles Martin, Seattle

Bag-tax opponents walking on paper-thin arguments

The thinness of the plastic industry's argument against the grocery bag tax is now transparent. The Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax, supported by the American Chemistry Council, ran a full-page ad in The Seattle Times July 30 making four points to frighten voters.

Its observations of the 20-cent tax on bags are factual but designed to provoke an emotional reaction against taxes. The coalition implies the tax is unfair because it excludes big-box stores. But big-box stores already reduce packaging considerably more than retail stores.

The coalition's emphasis on money that will go to hiring full-time city employees plays on antigovernment feelings, and it purposely obscures that these jobs would be to reduce garbage and promote recycling.

Finally, the coalition makes the absurd claim that because smaller stores keep the taxes, this won't help the environment. I suppose they haven't heard about the Eastern Garbage Patch in the North Pacific Gyre greater than the size of Texas. Or the animals that choke to death on plastic bags. Or the smothering impacts of plastic bags on coral reefs. Or carbon emissions from plastic and paper production. The list goes on and on.

-- Preston Hardison, Seattle

Solutions can be found to help poor endure bag tax

In response to Danny Westneat's column, the issue of poverty in the plastic-bag debate needs to include the desperately poor around the world who are adversely affected by the choices of North Americans.

Bags, pieces of bags and microscopic particles of bags are ingested by shellfish, fish, birds, turtles and other animals that are essential to ocean health. The poor around the world who depend on catching their food in these oceans cannot afford to have the ocean's health compromised. They are already disproportionately affected by the damage we have done to our environment.

I truly believe all of us in Seattle, no matter what our income level, can learn a new behavior. It takes time to make a new habit a routine, but it can be done.

Clearly, more thought needs to be put into figuring out what kind of reusable bag will work best for the poor and homeless in Seattle. However, the livelihood of the poor around the world is far more important than the "inconvenience" of bringing along a reusable bag.

-- Kimberly Christensen, Seattle

Times headline was a disservice to readers

Editor, The Times:

The headline on your [July 29] page-one weather story was an attention-grabbing "Hottest day ever?" But it was the subhead that has been bothering me all day: "Global warming? More like a high-pressure system and humidity that are parked over our region."

This subhead irresponsibly reassures people that global warming is not something to worry about, using the proximate causes of weather to dismiss global warming. Global warming is not a meteorological event you can use to describe the day's weather, like "Today we'll see a high-pressure system mixed with some moderate global warming."
Global warming is the gradual increase of global average temperatures along with volatile weather, a trend that has been well-documented over the past century. On the hottest days of the year people are the most receptive to efforts to stop global warming, and there is opportunity for action.

Discouraging this on the front page is the greatest disservice the The Times could do its readers.

-- Simon Bond, Seattle

Why aren't we asking Obama to sign environmental treaty?

As Puget Sound temperatures establish record highs, I wonder at the absence of people demanding President Obama sign the Kyoto Treaty to reduce global warming.

For eight years, while a Republican president was in office, one would regularly hear how wrong it was that the president would not sign the treaty. Now we hear nothing.
Just as the anti-war protests vanished after the election, even though soldiers are still dying overseas, the absence of any discussion on the Kyoto Treaty makes me wonder what antiwar protesters and environmentalists have as core values.

Does their silence on these issues show that they are just liberal lemmings willing to allow a Democrat president a free ride on issues they supposedly hold dear?

-- Tom Tangen, Edmonds

High Seattle temps no indication of global warming

July 29 you published five letters online ["It's hot in Seattle: Does this prove global warming exists?" seattletimes.com, Northwest Voices] citing the recent hot weather in Seattle as proof that global warming is real.

It's interesting to me that global-warming alarmists are permitted to use this argument, while global-warming skeptics are not. For example, when commentator George F. Will recently pointed out ["Turning a cold shoulder to climate-change," Opinion, syndicated column, July 24] that the Earth has experienced no measurable warming in 11 years, he was promptly lambasted by the alarmists: "Dolt! That's too short a timeline. Doesn't he know the difference between climate and weather?"

All I can say to the alarmists is, "Make up your mind." If 11 years of cooler weather doesn't disprove global warming, then it is ridiculous to say that two weeks of hot weather in Seattle proves it.

-- Paul Naumann, Tacoma

In hot weather, reminders of Iraq's electricity sanctions

The forecast for July 29 was 90 degrees in Miami, 100 degrees in Seattle and 111 degrees in Baghdad.

In August 2000, I led a delegation to deliver medicines to children in Basra, the largest city in southern Iraq. It was 104 degrees at 6 p.m. A dozen of us were sitting on the floor of this poor family's home sweating buckets when the ceiling fan began to turn. The woman of the house looked up and said, "Thank you, George Bush!"

The electricity had been off for three hours, and it was now their turn to have three hours of electricity before it was rationed again.

In 1990, Iraq had more than 9,000 megawatts of electrical capacity. After we bombed almost all of its electrical plants in the Gulf War, Iraq had less than one quarter of that.
We said, "Get rid of Saddam, and we'll give you electricity." The Iraqi people went through 12 years of sanctions without electricity to refrigerate, to pump sewage or to process water.

In this heat, allow a moment to think what the Iraqi people have been through.

-- Bert Sacks, Seattle

100-degree summer days will be the future of Seattle

Editor, The Times:

Professor Clifford Mass neglects climate change in his statement, "One day, your grandchildren will ask you did you really experience the temperatures of July 29, 2009?"

What was it like? How did you survive it? I hope my grandchildren ask me those questions. But it is more likely they will ask, "Were there really summers in Seattle when the temperature never reached 100 degrees?"

-- Gregory Johnson, Seattle

High temps just more proof of climate change

So, hearing much from the global-warming deniers lately?

-- Bill Moritz, Bothell

Doubt global warming exists? Climb a mountain, try to find a glacier

As a mountain climber since the mid-'90 s, I have personally witnessed the shrinking of glaciers on our surrounding mountains. It is unmistakable.

George F. Will ["Turning a cold shoulder to climate-change," Opinion, syndicated column, July 24] may be cavorting around an uninformed or disinterested group of people in order to conclude "skepticism about the evidence that supposedly supports current alarmism about climate change is growing."All scientific data has uncertainty. Unfortunately, the data on global warming just keeps on giving, and it is growing more certain with time, not less.

What is ironic is that China and India are certain to be some of the first countries to experience the major changes that occur with warming of the planet. When the Himalayan glaciers that supply one billion of their people with water disappear, they will see social change that cannot be mollified with economic growth.

The data on these glaciers is certain, irrefutable.

-- Steven Short, M.D., Mercer Island

Will is wrong; U.S. must be leader in cutting emissions

George F. Will argues we should do nothing to mitigate global warming because India, China and other developed countries will do nothing.

While we can't be certain what other nations will do, we can be pretty sure that if we don't do anything, they won't either. It is still true that the average American produces five times as much carbon dioxide as the average Chinese citizen and about 20 times as much as the average Indian.

Because Will and others are working hard to foster skepticism about the science, he may be right that skepticism is growing, but the evidence that global warming is a huge problem is moving in precisely the opposite direction.

If the U.S. acts, we have good reason to believe developing nations will conclude that most of them will be hit as hard or harder by warming than developed nations, that there are effective ways to mitigate global warming without destroying the economy and that we are all in this together.

-- Conway Leovy, Seattle

Welcome to Heattle

After waking up for the third time last night, I rolled over and saw Seattle change to Heattle.

It certainly captures our family's sentiments about the weather this week. Off to swim in Lake Washington.

-- Timothy Colman, Seattle

Come to Hawaii, where it's cooler than Seattle

Seattle's heat wave has created a convenient truth for Hawaii's struggling visitor industry.
While you are facing the possibility of an all-time high of 101 degrees today, it will be a shivery 83 degrees here on beautiful Kaneohe Bay. And we have the trade winds.

We anticipate full-page ads from the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau in markets like yours screaming: "Beat the heat. Visit subtropical Hawaii and chill!"

-- Walter Wright, Kaneohe, Hawaii

Removing dams, bringing back recreation

Editor, The Times:

I am a professional fly-fishing guide on Washington's Olympic Peninsula. I read Lance Dickie's recent column on the Snake River dam removals ["Reservoirs of uncertainty behind the Snake River dams," Opinion, July 24] with great interest.

As the column pointed out, the promises of a great economic boon to the region, as a result of building the dams, never materialized. Much of the river traffic engaged in shipping and barging comes at an unrealistic cost. The dams themselves have done more to harm the environment and the economy than they have ever done to contribute anything positive to the domestic life of the region.

The benefits of removing these dams are virtually guaranteed; a free-flowing river would bring recreation, paddling, river trips, scenic adventures, birding, camping and fishing back to the region.

All of these activities have one great thing in common: They do not damage the quality of the water or the environment, and they take nothing away but memories. Though this may seem a small contribution, recreational angling alone counts as a multibillion-dollar contribution to our economy already.

Add to this the benefit of increased cash flow and social culture to the Lewiston and Clarkston communities and the potential for a vast improvement in the fishing life of the tribal stakeholders, and it is hard to understand why the politicians are dragging their feet. Dam fools!

-- Bob Triggs, Port Townsend

Dam closure will be a win for both economy and environment

I liked everything about Lance Dickie's column on the changing dynamics in the Inland Northwest concerning salmon recovery and the fate of the lower Snake River dams -- except his characterization that this is another debate pitting the environment against jobs.

I am a fishing guide and a store manager at Creekside Angling Company in Issaquah. My livelihood depends on healthy fish populations. These fisheries depend on a healthy habitat.

Just like any other creature, salmon and steelhead exemplify the essential connection between environment and economy. It is most encouraging to see local leaders in Lewiston and Clarkston taking the initiative to push for the resolution of this dogged issue.

Whether the dams stay or go, our region needs to work together right now to restore healthy runs of salmon in a manner that benefits and serves any affected communities.

-- Brett Wedeking, Kirkland

Follow example of neighbors in salmon recovery

After what I consider nearly two decades of failures, it is hard not to be discouraged about Columbia Basin salmon-recovery efforts. Lance Dickie's column, however, gives me new hope at a time when change really does seem afoot -- except perhaps here in Washington state.

Idaho's senators have expressed support for convening stakeholders to tackle this issue. In Oregon, Sen. Jeff Merkley and Gov. Ted Kulongoski have said the same, and President Obama has recommitted the federal government to science-guided policymaking.

There is, however, a deafening silence coming from our congressional offices here at home. Pulling together the various competing stakeholders around a single table to work together to craft a lawful, effective and responsible recovery plan strikes me as something out of a Politics 101 course.

To Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell in particular: We need you on board and as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

-- K. Robert Johnson, Renton

Seattle a pioneer of reusable bag use

After reading the article, "20 cents per bag: Would it change our behavior?" [page one, July 18], I find myself questioning a few things.

I think it is amazing that Seattle is one of the pioneers on reusable shopping bags. We have always been a fairly green city. Because of this, I wonder why there is so much backlash against this new plastic-bag tax?

Surely, 20 cents seems a bit steep, but it's definitely an incentive to purchase reusable bags that only cost a few initial dollars while providing a lifetime of saving the environment.

It's a simple solution to the problem we see today with plastic bags, among other items, ending up in landfills across the country. There is no excuse, especially if Seattle is offering a free tote for every family. Sure, it will be a hassle at first, but I think this will revolutionize how we shop.

Keep the green coming!

-- Brittany Gerhart, Renton

With enforcement, bad habits changed for betterment of all

In the past year or so, many excellent local and state rulings have provided better structure for our safety and quality of life but little or no publicity or enforcement has occurred to provide motivation to change old habits.

Some examples: continued texting and cellphone use while driving, little or no public knowledge of the 3-foot clearance rule for cyclists and pedestrians and continued restaurant use of styrofoam containers in Seattle.

Now, voters will be inundated with propaganda from the American Chemistry Council and others to eliminate the fee for using plastic bags, reversing a positive and progressive environmental commitment we have made to lessen the impact of plastics in Puget Sound and in the oceans.

To make positive changes for public safety and better quality of life -- any change, individually or collectively -- takes enormous will and effort to rise above old habits and behaviors.

It helps to be informed and understand the reasons for these new positions. Sometimes it takes the discipline of law enforcement to encourage better behavior.
With collective, conscious choices to be and do better as human beings, there will always be some hesitation and resistance -- but making evolutionary changes is a certain part of moving upward and forward in learning to live more harmoniously with our planet and one another.

If internal motivation doesn't provide enough discipline to do what is right, external enforcement can close the gap. Despite how I personally favor less legal interference in personal lives, improving our collective future must be a higher priority.

-- Denise Mannino, Kirkland

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

Electric bus wires should go so houses can move

Editor, The Times:

In the July 9 front-page article headlined "Houses vs. trees," it wasn't until deep in the story that we learn the true nature of the conflict. A more accurate headline would have been "Trees vs. electric bus wires."

A lush overhang of mature trees makes a neighborhood walkable, enhances home values and beautifies the neighborhood and, by extension, the city. These values are not easily quantifiable, but they cannot be replaced. Based on the front-page photograph, those trees are as old as or older than the oldest residents of the street.
Electric bus wires, by contrast, can be removed and replaced relatively easily with no long-term negative impact.

Good city planning requires taking more than one issue into consideration when making important decisions. I encourage the city and Metro to rethink their decision to reject the Denny Way route for moving these houses.

-- Sherry Narens, Seattle

Bus wires are the villain in 'Houses vs. trees'

The "villain" of the story, "Houses vs. trees," is neither. Neighbors should not be expected to sacrifice a beloved, tranquil canopy of mature growth. Such leafy refuges within our city are invaluable not only to residents but to people driving through the neighborhood. For those who live there, they would come home to face the loss each and every day.

The desire to salvage these homes is also laudable. There was another option, nixed by Metro, to move the home down Denny Way. Overhead wires are replaceable. Trees, and the wonderful refreshment of a leafy canopy, are not -- at least for decades.

-- Mitzi L. Simmons, Seattle

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

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

Paul J. Richards / Getty Images

A Greenpeace activist in a polar bear suit walks on the sidewalk outside the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. The group presented petitions as part of an effort to get Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to immediately rescind two Bush regulations that fundamentally undermine protections for the polar bear and thwart the regulation of global-warming pollution.

Green enthusiasts overlook realities of actions

Editor, The Times:

Generally I find George Will's comments extremely ideological and predictable, but also provocative and irritating. However, I found his latest editorial to be right on the money ["Bursting 'the green bubble,' " Opinion, June 5].

People are tripping over themselves to be fools for the environment. And, as Will notes, the Prius is an excellent example of how the environmental life-cycle costs of building a car with a nickel-based battery are overlooked by most shoppers because the car gets good gas mileage. Buying one is a feel-good exercise.

I would only add that social issues --or perhaps the collective issues confronting society, like environmental preservation, health care or even conducting foreign wars -- should be coordinated by government, not left to voluntary, individual acts of kindness.

The idea that a hodgepodge of individual choices will create a coherent policy for society is misguided. Acting appropriately as a person is important, but it won't get you a clean environment, better health care or peace in the Middle East. You need government working on these things.

Unfortunately, over the last decade the government has neglected to coordinate effective responses to crucial issues, even neglecting basic regulatory responsibility, essentially condemning individual Americans to ridiculous displays to address larger problems. We are participants in a kind of cargo cult of good-deed doing.

No surprise, of course, that the dynamic market economy is there to give us the tools and props to enable our efforts. This part always works.

-- Eric Perkunder, Seattle

Columnist mocks issue with serious consequences

The extent to which glaring logical errors undercut George Will's attempts to write profound editorials is stunning. In his latest effort, Will, using just one essay by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in The New Republic, makes the utterly illogical assertion that efforts to "go green" are essentially useless and therefore the scientifically proven danger of global warming can safely be ignored.

While Shellenberger and Nordhaus are respected journalists, they are not climate scientists, and their argument that the infrastructure on which we depend "requires huge quantities of fossil fuels" is lethal precisely because it is ironically accurate. Thus the need to end this dependency on fossil fuels by embracing lifestyles that use less and differently generated energy. Will calls these efforts "ecology as psychology," a mocking phrase that completely ignores the serious environmental consequences of an ever-increasing reliance on fossil fuels.

Given The Times' traditional Fund for the Needy, I suggest that the editors start a George Will Fund for two purposes: hire a crane to dig his head out of the sand, and pay for him to take a Logic 101 course at a local community college.

-- Michael W. Shurgot, Seattle

Deserves fresh, fair review

In attempting to sensationalize Washington's nuclear-power history ["Energy Northwest considers more nuclear power," seattletimes.com, Local News, June 3), The Associated Press minimized the most important part of the story: the success that nuclear power is in Washington today.

Our region's only nuclear-power plant supplies enough low-cost, full-time power for well over a million Washington homes, with no greenhouse-gas emissions.

Attempts to undermine future nuclear options in the region by rehashing our state's nuclear challenges of the 1970s are irresponsible and fail to recognize how much has changed in nuclear power operations, design, safety, technology and funding options.

Philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Remembering is different from obsessing. If dwelling on the past limits our efforts and ambitions to our past successes, we are guaranteed to miss every new advance, new technology and new opportunity.

It is time to recognize that nuclear power in the 21st century is not what it was in the 20th. It is our only real option for providing the large-scale, reliable, affordable power needed to get America's economy back on its feet without contributing to climate-change concerns.

-- Vic Parrish, CEO, Energy Northwest, Richland

New analyses still catastrophic

The article regarding sea-level rise due to Antarctic ice-sheet melting ["Scientists scale back forecast of sea-level rise," News, May 15] describes new analyses showing a potential 10-foot rise in sea levels rather than earlier predictions of 20 feet. This should not put anyone at ease as it is still catastrophic to humankind.

We all need to get serious about our many contributions to climate change. I am tired of hearing that addressing climate change will hurt the economy. The reality is that not addressing climate change will drastically affect our economy, our quality of life and the future of coming generations.

There is no free lunch! We either pay some now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions or pay infinitely more later with no guarantee we will be able to solve the problem. Yes, energy costs will go up initially -- mainly because they have been artificially kept low as their real costs (pollution health impacts, protection of foreign oil sources, etc.) have been primarily externalized. But that initial bump always happens as we transition to a new technology plateau -- which is what we need to do when it comes to boldly moving on to renewable energy, efficient transportation systems and green products.

This coming Thursday, May 21, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be holding a public hearing regarding its recently proposed ruling that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health. The public hearing will be from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. in downtown Seattle at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center. We should all be there to state how important this issue is to our future and the future of succeeding generations.

-- Peter Rimbos, Maple Valley

System will make U.S. less competitive

Columnist Paul Krugman is wrong in thinking America can afford a CO2 cap-and-trade program ["The junk economics surrounding action on climate change," Opinion, May 2].

Obama's plan to "cut the deficit in half" relies on $2 trillion in new revenue from 2010-2019. One-third is from CO2 cap-and-trade, and some estimates are two to three times that. This would be a burden on U.S. businesses that our global competitors will not face.

Cap-and-trade will not save the environment. Peter Huber, in a City Journal article, says, "We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions -- because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still."

It would be better to get the facts and not just some intellectual opinions before we flush this country's economy down the drain.

-- Bob Benze, Silverdale

It's about responsibility'

Hatcheries have been utilized by public, private and tribal sectors for many years. Billions of dollars have been spent on spawning habitat and fish passage over dams. Despite all of these efforts, we are still no closer to recovery of the runs of endangered salmon and steelhead in the Northwest than we were when those runs were first listed as endangered.

In his recent guest commentary ["Hatchery reform comes to the Columbia River," Opinion, April 24], Jim Waldo accurately reported that the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) tells us not only why recovery has not been achieved, but also how recovery can finally be achieved. It tells us how hatcheries must be used and operated.

HSRG also defines how we need to fish to both remove greater numbers of hatchery fish to keep them off the natural spawning beds and to protect the wild fish so they can reach the spawning beds. It is called mark-selective fishing. The unacceptable alternative is to stop producing hatchery fish, and allow no fishing that would kill the few remaining endangered wild fish.

The HSRG recommendations are not about who gets to kill the fish, or even how many fish get to be killed. The arguments are not, as many would like to make them appear, tribal versus recreational versus commercial fishermen. The fact of the matter is that we, all fishermen and hatchery operators, have done a poor job of stewarding recovery of ESA stocks.

Waldo does a good job of stating facts, but stops short of identifying that we all bear the responsibility of recovering these endangered runs. HSRG tells us how to do that. It is not a management or allocation issue; it is a moral and ethical imperative, and a burden shared by all who value the resource.

It is now known that without the benefit of wild stock to enhance the hatchery stock, eventually the hatchery stocks will also die out, with no option for recovery. Conservation trumps allocation and benefits everyone. It is time that all fishermen employ mark-selective gear and methods. It is time we all take responsibility for protecting wild fish, and for selectively catching more hatchery fish.

While U.S. v. Washington is the law of the land, the Endangered Species Act is also the law of the land, and before there can be comanagement of a resource, there has to be a resource to manage. If we fail in our responsibility to do what it takes to achieve recovery of these ESA stocks, we place the very resource itself in peril.

-- Andrew Marks, Federal Way

Do your part: Go veggie

Lynne K. Varner seems to lament in her April 30 editorial notebook that her 8-year-old son has no means to help save the "beautiful species" seen in the film "Earth" [" 'Earth': warm and fuzzy,"Opinion]. The good news is that there is something very simple he can do, without waiting for politicians to take action: stop eating meat.

Animal agriculture is a primary cause for deforestation (save the rain forests!), water pollution, and CO2, methane and nitrous oxide production. Eating meat supports global warming, which leads to species extinction.

It's easy to demand that Disney plant trees in the Brazilian rain forests (as Varner did), as no effort has to be made on the part of the individual. It takes a lot more effort to put one's words and sentiments into action.

-- Phyllis Becker, Port Hadlock

Investigation findings are tool, not rule

The treaties of 1855 secured for the Columbia Basin treaty tribes the right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. To fully realize those rights, the tribes address every aspect of salmon recovery, including hatchery reform.

The three-year detailed investigation of the role of hatcheries in restoring salmon conducted by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) reached the same conclusion that the tribes did years ago: Hatcheries are important to recovering the basin's salmon ["Hatchery reform comes to the Columbia River," Opinion, Jim Waldo guest commentary, April 24]. The tribes themselves use hatcheries in their salmon-recovery efforts.

The HSRG findings are technical recommendations that are a tool, not a rule. They are one approach of many to addressing declining salmon runs in a dynamic and complex environment. The HSRG recommendations need to be considered in the larger context of existing management agreements, ongoing recovery efforts and mitigation actions required by law for impacts to salmon by hydro operations and habitat loss.

The U.S. v. Oregon technical and policy committees are reviewing the HSRG recommendations for implications to harvest. Any attempt by the HSRG to change harvest activities through their report is inappropriate. Harvest has always been, and will continue to be, managed under the US v. Oregon Harvest Management Agreement.

-- N. Kathryn Brigham, chair, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Ore.

Reform should help recovery of wild populations

Jim Waldo's guest commentary reflects a long-developing understanding by scientists and politicians of what is needed to protect our rapidly diminishing populations of wild salmon while maintaining reasonable harvest fisheries for all user groups.

This all began with landmark legislation passed by the Washington Legislature in 1995, mandating the mass-marking of state hatchery-produced chinook and coho salmon by removing the adipose fin before the juvenile salmon are released. Subsequent expenditures of many millions of dollars of state and federal taxpayer funds for special machines have resulted in nearly all hatchery chinook and coho salmon being mass-marked for easy identification when surviving fish return as adults.

We now have the ability to have our cake and eat it, too, so to speak. This program allows all harvesters -- tribal, commercial and sports -- to mark selective fish for the surplus hatchery salmon, enabling the Endangered Species Act-listed species to escape to the spawning gravels. More hatchery fish are harvested, reducing negative impacts on wild salmon, and also providing a better economic return on the public's significant investment in hatcheries.

Waldo's guest commentary makes clear that we now have the means to phase out use of nonselective gill nets that continue to hamper a speedier recovery of wild-fish populations. Now only political will is required. Let us not fail in making the changeover in the interest of conservation.

-- Frank Urabeck, Bonney Lake

Leadership needed for legislation

The Seattle Times did a good job of summing up our state's progress on curbing climate change and transitioning to a clean energy economy ["Climate-change progress," Opinion, editorial, April 20].

Watching HB 1819/SB 5735's progress, I have been excited at the prospect of Washington state finally taking action on climate change after years of talk, and then dismayed at lack of leadership to take real action to reach the level we need.

Although cap-and-trade is not in the current bill, this current bill is still legislation worthy of our support, requiring that Washington's only coal-fired power plant reduce its emissions by 2025. Transitioning to clean power is not easy, but it is certainly possible with such a lengthy time period. We should urge this transition to start as soon as possible -- for the sake of emissions reductions and because it will be easier than attempting to switch all at once, five or 10 or 15 years down the line.

The other crucial part of the current legislation will help us reduce emissions from traffic by increasing options for transportation. The result should get us where we need to go faster, and with reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. Since 55 percent of our emissions in Washington come from our cars, this is crucial.

The legislation at hand moves us forward in mitigating climate change. I hope state Sen. Phil Rockefeller will demonstrate leadership and help pass this bill. We should fight for every step forward that we can -- even the small steps count!

-- Maradel Gale, Bainbridge Island

The missing link in the debate

Washington state excels in taking on the challenges of climate change ["Positioning Washington for climate leadership," Opinion, Gov. Chris Gregoire commentary, April 7]. Our Legislature has reflected this sentiment in a number of bills being looked at this session. Proposals include a statewide cap-and-trade program (SB 5735) and provisions for small wind energy (SB 1008).

However, there is a missing link that we fail to recognize, one that our state rule makers have neglected to discover appropriate solutions to: the impacts of creeping sprawl upon our rural landscapes.

Nothing is more necessary than equipping local government planners with tools to evaluate the impacts of this kind of development. The current environmental rules were written long before "climate change" was on the lips of the masses and sea-level rise was being considered.

Tools are needed now to calculate the carbon footprint of development and to offset the impacts. Pilot projects (which the state has proposed) may not be enough. A new, comprehensive approach is needed if we hope to combat what the Environmental Protection Agency is now calling a "danger to public health and welfare."

The missing link is not at the governor's office, nor in our individual lifestyle choices, but the unsustainable practices found at our city and county governments.

-- Ryan Hughes, Seattle

Consequences for wildlife, predators

I have read the article by Lynda Mapes about the Nisqually dike, as well as other articles ["Farewell, trail," NW Wednesday, April 15]. While I don't dispute the intent of reverting the dike-enclosed part of the refuge to estuary, I am unconvinced that the timing is well thought-out.

With this inundation comes the loss of uplands habitat that supports voles and other small mammals, which in turn feed a number of predatory birds -- owls, hawks, etc. It makes no sense whatsoever to flood this upland with saltwater at the height of the breeding and feeding season.

Yet the refuge presents a very loosely defined timeline for breaching the dike and flooding the uplands and appears to have minimal interest in the consequences for predatory wildlife, especially when young are being fed.

-- Glen Buschmann, Olympia

Captain shows real character

What makes Cap. Richard Phillips so remarkable for me is that when he originally stood up on the pirates' boat and then jumped in the water, he no doubt was assuming that there was a 24-hour surveillance from the U.S. ship only 100 feet away, sharpshooters ready ["How Navy snipers saved captain," page one, April 13]. He brilliantly strategized them shooting the pirates when the latter would try to retrieve him from the water.

What Capt. Phillips was not aware of was a lack of a 24-hour surveillance by American sharpshooters. They obviously got the message from the captain after their failure, but Capt. Phillips never mentioned this military failing after his release, having nothing but praise for the military. That is real character.

-- Gil Costello

Navy training can harm marine life

Extensive coverage has been devoted to the U.S. Navy's rescue of the containership captain off the Somali coast. This operation utilized three naval vessels, drones, night-vision goggles and paratrooping Navy SEAL snipers. We can feel proud when our armed forces work with such precision.

Unfortunately, no coverage was afforded the USS San Francisco's April 7 use of mid-frequency in the Strait of Juan de Fuca as part of a sea trial for the nuclear submarine, having spent three years in a shipyard after colliding with a seamount. Such sonar has been shown to kill marine mammals and fish with swim bladders such as salmon, rockfish and herring.

While the need for military training is undeniable, the potential for collateral damage in the biologically rich and acoustically reflective inshore waters causes concern, especially when conducted in darkness. Reports of collisions with nuclear subs, such as the USS Hartford ["Two U.S. Navy vessels collide," News, March 21], are far more common than the Navy may have us believe.

It is time that our elected officials who have made Washington home to one of the most militarized waters in the world ensure that such training does not render the vast amount of public resources being spent on natural-resource recovery moot.

-- Fred Felleman, 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

Al Grillo / The Associated Press

Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin, shown here speaking to Army personnel during a deployment ceremony in February, recently acknowledged the threat posed by global warming.

Editor, The Times:

I was pleased to see the article "Palin acknowledges global-warming threat" [Times, News, April 15]. However, I believe her assertion that "relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow the discharge of greenhouse gasses" is a little misleading.

Natural gas is primarily methane -- CH4 (one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms). Like all hydrocarbon fuels, when natural gas burns, it releases CO2 that was sequestered in the Earth millions of years ago when the CO2 level and the temperature were much higher than today. The fine-print word in Gov. Palin's statement is "slow," which is true because natural gas has more energy per unit than coal or gasoline.

Another difference to the environment is that other hydrocarbons, such as gasoline and coal (even clean coal), produce significant amounts of other gases and particulates that make the air less healthy for plants and animals.

While natural gas has an edge over other fuels in the amount of CO2 it pulls from the ground, the benefits are small compared to geothermal, solar and wind, which produce no CO2 and do produce biofuels that return CO2 that was recently taken from the atmosphere when the plant was grown.

Finally, from the article it appears that Gov. Palin's trip to Washington, D.C., was not to talk about global warming. But she was using global warming to lobby for more drilling in her state for traditional hydrocarbons, which could include natural gas. It is also interesting to consider the CO2 impact of transporting and housing the "more than 1,000 Alaskans" who attended the Department of the Interior hearings on additional drilling in Alaska.

-- Carl Slater, Seattle

Distorting facts to promote natural-gas leasing

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's statement in a recent article that global warming is harming her state contrasts strongly with the 2009 report from the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska, which says that there has been little warming in Alaska since 1977 and that Alaska's temperatures have actually been trending downward for the last seven years.

Gov. Palin's statement that global warming is harming Alaska was made at a hearing before Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, considering renewed oil and natural-gas leasing on the outer continental shelf. The article indicated that Gov. Palin made the point at the hearing that "relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow
the discharge of greenhouse gases."

Gov. Palin appears to have chosen to distort climate-change trends in Alaska in order to promote renewed oil and natural-gas leasing on the outer continental shelf.

-- Ken Schlichte, Tumwater

Cheap power costs the environment

Coal, no matter how you slice it or dice it, is environmentally a four-letter word.

It can provide cheap power if you don't count the cost to the environment. When you do, it becomes probably the most expensive method of generating electricity. In order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, Washington state needs to move beyond coal power and it needs to do it now ["State's secret deal sparks outcry," NW Tuesday, April 7].

We need to make a huge reduction in the state's global-warming pollution within the next 10 years. Luckily, we can make a significant reduction in our state's greenhouse-gas emissions in one fell swoop.

The largest single source of greenhouse-gas emissions in the state is the TransAlta coal power plant in Centralia, which provides 17 percent of the state's energy. The plant's owners have been pushing the state for a free pass to keep polluting indefinitely without addressing their global-warming pollution.

Gov. Chris Gregoire should stand up to the TransAlta corporation and tell them that their global-warming pollution is no longer welcome in Washington. The governor has been a leader in creating cleaner, healthier energy sources; now it's time for her to take her leadership to the next level by moving Washington beyond coal power within the next 10 years.

-- Wes Gallaugher, Edmonds

Mark Harrison / The Seattle Times

Donald Harmon, with his dog Daffodil, was fined $1000 for using a wood stove during a burn ban.

Penalties help those with respiratory problems

Editor, The Times:

I have little sympathy for the gentleman featured in the article ["Burn ban lands retiree in hot water," page one, April 13] who received the $850 fine. He and others like him make life very unpleasant and unhealthy for those of us with respiratory problems.

I'm thankful that I'm not his neighbor because even when burning is not forbidden, smoke from wood-burning devices causes me to wheeze and cough. This is true even though my respiratory problems are not severe.

It is well-known that many respiratory diseases are caused and exacerbated by such environmental degradation as wood smoke. The article couches the problem abstractly in terms of rules, penalties, bureaucrats, etc. I feel that the article gave little attention to the reason for those rules, penalties and bureaucrats -- living, breathing human beings.

-- Kalman Brauner, Seattle

A disingenuous effort at leadership

I read the bullet-ridden special to The Times from Gov. Christine Gregoire about climate change ["Positioning Washington for climate leadership," Opinion, April 7]. I was surprised that she didn't take credit for the large reduction in greenhouse gases that has taken place because of our current recession. She also didn't take credit for the reduction in traffic over the past six months, although some of it is due to the Sonics leaving town.

I felt compelled to respond to her disingenuous letter on climate leadership for three reasons. First, she says, "We're seeing the devastating results here -- two 100-year floods in the past two years." She can't prove this. I was in Phoenix in 1980 when they had the first of their two 100-year floods. They didn't blame it on climate change, but they did come up with some better planning for the future.

Second: "Require coal-fired power plants operating in the state to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases or be fully carbon neutral by no later than 2025." I wasn't the only one who also read The Times' article in the same paper, "State's secret deal sparks outcry" [NW Tuesday, April 7]. I scoured this article to see if the governor's negotiating minions mentioned anything to lower the greenhouse-gas emissions. No mention of carbon-footprint lowering; the negotiations centered on mercury reduction and reducing nitrogen-oxide by using cleaner-burning coal from the Rocky Mountains

I did find out that we only have one coal-fired plant in Washington, a fact that was also not noted in "Move Washington beyond coal" [Opinion, April 10]. This plant is responsible for 17 percent of our state's energy mix, which we obviously can't afford to take off the grid.

Third: "President Obama is already working with Congress to develop a national cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases -- a most effective and efficient way to reduce harmful emissions." Notice that she doesn't say "the most effective" because they haven't any proof that this method does what she and President Obama imply. We want to believe that the president and the governor would do what's right for us Americans.

On April 11 in your paper, columnist Froma Harrop wrote, "Cap-and-trade and its variations do amount to a tax" ["Get off the energy roller-coaster," Opinion]. It was after reading this that I realized the function of the governor's patter. She is trying to sell us something -- the cap-and-trade.

The politicians have created their own Pirates of Penzance. The money raised by the cap-and-trade will be much more than the money raised selling dispensations from the Pope. However, the brokers of these deals stand to make enough money to make the earnings of Bernie Madoff look like small change.

-- James Coghlan, Seattle

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

Centralia's coal-fired power plant will continue to operated under a tentative pact beween the state and a Canadian company.

Deal is an embarrassment

Editor, The Times:

It was the height of irony that the same issue of The Times that contained Gov. Chris Gregoire's opinion piece, "Positioning Washington for climate leadership," [April 7] also revealed a secret deal between her administration and the owners of the Centralia coal-fired power plant, which is "the state's biggest single source of greenhouse gases."

Isn't it embarrassing that an environmental-law expert is quoted in the article ["State's secret deal sparks outcry," NW Tuesday, April 7] as saying,"I think the state got snookered"?

Is this another example of regulators being so spineless when confronted with corporate lobbyists that they forget their duty to protect the citizenry?

We should be asking ourselves not how much pollution we should allow Washington's only coal-powered plant to emit, but how can we act to shut this plant down? We don't need the small amount of power it produces, especially if a program to retrofit residential insulation is aggressively pursued.

Are the short-term profits of private investors more important than protecting the public from the floods and fires that stem from climate change?

-- David C. Yao, Seattle

Turn talk into action

While the governor writes environmental happy-talk columns, behind closed doors she secretly negotiates deals to allow the Centralia coal-fired power plant to continue to pollute.

Let's can the happy talk and get real here. Leading climate scientist James Hansen points out that all oil and natural gas will ultimately be consumed because those fuels are so valuable and so overwhelmingly come from countries that have no desire to stop polluting.

Leading climate scientist Susan Solomon points out that CO2 emissions are cumulative and climate change is irreversible for many millennia -- the damage we do today by consuming fossil fuels is irreversible. But if we can't control oil and we can't control natural gas, what can we control?

We, the citizens of Washington state, can control when we decide to stop burning coal to create the electricity to light the incandescent light bulbs and electric baseboard heaters
that needlessly waste this dirty electricity.

Only when we decide to pull the plug on coal will we actually begin to stop climate change. Everything else is just happy talk.

-- James Adcock, Bellevue

Wetlands restoration necessary

Saltwater intrusion is a symptom of the disease, costing rice farmers $36 million this year ["Louisiana rice fields salted by 2008 hurricane," seattletimes.com, Business & Technology, April 8]. How much next?

Upon moving to New Orleans from humble Ballard, I was unaware the map of the continental U.S. was a fallacy. No one told me the ocean claimed 25 square miles of land annually from Louisiana.

Yet the problem is bigger than storm surge and the salinity it brings. The problem is coastal-wetlands degradation. It is the untreated disease that threatens southern Louisiana's survival.

As a student, I've learned wetlands are crucial for a sustainable way of life down in the Big Easy. For every 2.7 miles of wetlands, storm surge is reduced by a foot. Without wetlands' natural protection, New Orleans is unimaginably vulnerable to the Gulf.

Keep this city alive; its eccentricities and quirks have made me fall in love with New Orleans. $100 billion for wetlands restoration and New Orleans' protection is a necessity worth fighting for.

-- Emily Cardarelli, Fort Lewis

Light bulbs not the only mercury hazard

I agree that mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs can pose a hazard. Thank you, George Will, for your concern ["Mad rush to save the planet not such a bright idea after all," Opinion, April 3].

However, I have yet to read of your concern about the tons of waste mercury dumped into our waters by industries over the past decades.

Perhaps you were OK with that since it was just corporate America successfully externalizing production costs. And the corporate directors weren't raising their kids on or about those toxic sites.

-- Thomas Goetzl, Bellingham

Take action to solve dire problem

I could not agree more with the authors Katie Baird, Peter Dorman and Hart Hodges in their March 27 article, "Climate change will be costly for Washington state" [seattletimes.com, Opinion].

Indeed, it will be costly for the world. Numerous cost-benefit analyses have come to the same conclusions as the recent report by the Program on Climate Economics of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon. Namely, that the decision to do nothing about climate change could cost us dearly.

Having recently finished a degree in climate science, I am convinced that the climate problem is grave, and it is urgent. We may not know exactly how badly the climate will respond, but we do know that we only have one Earth, and that we are taking a big and unnecessary risk.

The irony of climate change is that nearly everyone recognizes the problem and yet few are willing to make the hard political choices to address it.

We know how to solve this problem: First and foremost, we need to put a price on carbon. What is left is to commit to taking action. Now is the time to let members of Congress know that we will hold them accountable for the choices they make about our future. Many will soon be in their home districts for the April recess, making this a good time to make our voices heard.

-- Guillaume Mauger, Citizen's Climate Lobby, Seattle

Help Washington become a leader in green technologies

Gov. Christine Gregoire proposed a strong bill to combat global warming ["Gregoire pleads for teeth in a climate bill," NW Wednesday, March 18].

Unfortunately, the oil and gas lobbies are trying to get the Legislature to water it down.

Passing the governor's bill is important for both our environment and our economy. If we act now, Washington can help combat global warming and become a leader in the green technologies of the future.

-- Christopher Hoffman, Seattle

Working together to protect nature

It was encouraging to see in the March 27 article, "More land sought for Alpine Lakes Wilderness," [NW Friday] that Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Dave Reichert were able to set aside their differences and work together in order to protect wilderness lands and to ensure that future generations will have available to them these wonders of the natural world.

As our cities swell and our connection to the rest of creation becomes more distant, ensuring protections for wilderness becomes increasingly relevant and urgent. These wild places offer the abundant natural space necessary for adventure and for spiritual renewal.

The free-flowing rivers and wild forests within the Alpine Lakes Proposal display the astonishing diversity and interconnectedness of God's creation. Through my work at Earth Ministry, I have witnessed that in order to respond to the many difficult challenges we face, it is imperative to work through our differences and build meaningful partnerships.

I thank Sen. Murray and Rep. Reichert for providing an example of how effective partnerships can help to create balanced, meaningful protections.

-- Beth Anderson, Seattle

AP Photo / US Fish & Wildlife

A gray wolf rests in tall grass in this undated photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Stand up for endangered species

Editor, The Times:

The unconscionable killing of two young gray wolves of the Lookout Pack in the Methow Valley is horrible beyond belief ["Bloody box tips officials to Okanogan wolf killing," Times, page one, March 28]. The greed and insensitivity of humans, who are actually far more dangerous than wolves, is deplorable and must be exposed and opposed.

Several conservation groups have been working together in coalition since last summer to educate the public about the importance of wild wolves and other predators in the ecosystems of our state. These include the North Cascades Conservation Council's Wolf Working Group, the Wildlife Coalition of the National Parks Conservation Association, the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Conservation Northwest.

We have been collecting signatures on a petition to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We are urging Fish and Wildlife to formulate wolf-conservation policy based on sound science -- not to allow the producers (ranchers and sheep growers) to control the policymaking process.

A government-sponsored survey found that 75 percent of Washington's citizens support wolf recovery in our state. It is time for concerned citizens to stand up for an endangered species, the noble gray wolf, and tell the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to manage the gray wolf according to sound science.

Enforcement of laws against killing gray wolves must also be a top priority as our endangered species struggle to survive in a profit-driven culture.

-- Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds

Senseless killing

I read in total disbelief about the senseless killing of one of our new wolf pack members in Methow Valley by a rancher.

Washington state should be lucky to have a more-balanced ecosystem with the appearance of a new wolf pack from Canada. There was no cause to kill the animal since it has not threatened the rancher's livestock,

On top of that, [the rancher] tried to profit from the wolf pelt. Are we back in trophy times?
I hope [the rancher] gets the proper punishment and a hefty fine for his arrogance and lawlessness.

-- Tamara Wulff, Lynnwood

Check the facts

I am surprised by the comments made in this letter ["Ultracheap car: the poor exploited," Northwest Voices, March 27]. Perhaps the writer could have checked the facts.

The Nano gives 56 miles to the gallon. How much does the writer's car gives per gallon.

Did he check the pollution of U.S. cities when he talks about the choking air of India's cities? The U.S. emits about 17 times the CO2 per capita than India.

The Nano has the highest fuel rating of any other Indian petrol-powered car and also the lowest CO2 at 101 gm/km.

He talks about the shameless exploitation of the poor and ignorant majority. How much of India does he know? Many in India are poor but they are certainly not ignorant. These cars will replace scooters now being used and will emit less CO2.

Yes, the number of cars on the road will increase and so will the total emission of gasses. But this does not mean than a person in India should forgo the right to drive a car so that people in developed countries can continue to do so.

While concern for the environment is laudable, checking of facts is even more laudable.

-- Joseph Cooper, Federal Way

Keep funding for prevention, response

McClatchy Newspapers

A worker uses a high pressure hose to blast the oiled rocks on a Smith Island beach in Prince William Sound, on May 3, 1989, after the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez.

The "Exxon Valdez: lessons learned" [Times, editorial, March 24] is that complacency and lack of oversight by industry and government was found to be the underlying problem. As a result, an independent citizens advisory group was formed to hold the government's and industry's feet to the fire.

Closer to home, a sizable oil spill four years ago in Puget Sound prompted the creation of a similar group -- the Washington State Oil Spill Advisory Council (OSAC), to maintain Washington's vigilance in oil-spill prevention, preparedness and response.
While we rejoice over legislation to provide a permanent year-round rescue tug, we still have more work ahead to protect our marine waters from oil spills. Recently, OSAC released a comprehensive study documenting our deficiencies in being prepared to respond to a major oil spill. It found that we couldn't even handle a spill one-fifth the size of the Exxon Valdez, even in perfect conditions with no glitches.

OSAC is now on the chopping block. Without OSAC, there will be no long-term partnership and consensus between fishermen, conservation groups, local governments and others on these issues, and the public and our beloved Puget Sound will at a distinct disadvantage. It is imperative that legislators in Olympia retain OSAC's funding and authority in the state's operating budget.

-- Rein Attemann, Seattle

President's budget puts us on track

Earlier this month, scientists warned that global warming is outpacing even the worst-case scenario predictions by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the same time, our country is in a "once-a-century financial crisis" [Thomas Friedman]. President Obama's proposed budget is the best opportunity we have to finally address both of these problems and put our country back in charge of our future.

The president's budget demonstrates his commitment to transitioning to a clean-energy economy and stopping global warming. It will protect our planet, put millions of Americans to work in new green jobs, and rebuild our economy on a sound foundation. That is -- if Congress delivers this budget to the country, which at this point is a very big if.

I urge Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who sits on the budget committee, to continue to be a champion for our economy and our environment and keep global warming a centerpiece of the federal budget, just as the president has proposed.

-- Kat Scott, Bellevue

Follow the orcas

I was dismayed by the way your article "Salish Sea: We're already sailing on it" [page one, March 14] treated the name: as though it was something that deserved controversy.

The term the Salish Sea does not rename Puget Sound. The fact is, Puget Sound is part of a larger transboundary ecosystem. George Vancouver named the fjord -- the waters south of the Tacoma Narrows -- after Peter Puget. The United States Geological Survey defines Puget Sound as the waters south of Admiralty Inlet, Deception Pass and Swinomish Channel.

The term Puget Sound recently has been expanded to the Canadian border. This disregards nature keeps us from being able to even see our ecosystem, much less solve its problems and human effects.

In the past 25 years, that bioregion's population has more than doubled. Its 2020 population is expected to reach 4 million in Canada and exceed 5 million south of the border.

The orcas enter by the transboundary Strait of Juan de Fuca, and travel up the transboundary Haro Strait, along the west side of San Juan Island, following the salmon returning to Canada's Fraser River. Try explaining that by using only the term Puget Sound.

-- Shann Weston, Friday Harbor

How green is our Legislature

The failure of cap-and-trade legislation was not "a win for major Washington businesses," as you report, but an utter failure of foresight, leadership, vision and conscience ["Lawmakers thwart Gregoire's cap-and-trade plan on climate," Politics & Government, Monday, March 16].

Similarly, the state Senate's passage of SB 5840 (which seeks, with cowardly illogic, to disembowel the voter-approved, job-creating I-937) indicates that our alleged representatives lack the spine to make difficult decisions for our long-term prosperity.

We -- citizens, lawmakers and businesses alike -- can postpone accountability on climate, energy and ecological issues, but the reckoning will come sooner than we like, and it will be all the more expensive for our foot-dragging.

Meanwhile, our elected representatives have missed the opportunity for real environmental leadership, passing the torch (once again) to our Oregonian neighbors -- who, I pray, will have the courage to do the right thing. If our great-great-grandchildren-to-be could vote, I know they'd say the same.

-- Graham Brown, Seattle

The grist of the matter

I want to thank you for your recent article "Seattle's Grist fuels Facebook's climate-change forum" [Local News, March 4]. Michelle Ma provided excellent information about the positive uses for social networking Web sites such as Facebook.

As a student pursuing a major in Journalism at Seattle University, I am proud that locally based organizations such as Grist make an effort to utilize Facebook as a medium for generating environmental awareness.

I myself visit Facebook once or twice on a daily basis and have firsthand experience regarding its place in the future of journalism and communication. The site offers an incredible opportunity to spread the word on social issues in addition to employing the global-forum aspects, which are literally at our fingertips.

Getting in touch with younger generations about important global issues is of utmost importance to future generations and to our planet. I applaud coverage of companies that aim to do this, and hope to enjoy coverage of further developments in communication.

Thank you for representing our city as leaders in environmental activism.

-- Elaine Genest, Seattle

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

Addressing the fundamental cause: overpopulation

I read your editorial "Environmental Remedy" in the March 6 Times.

There are very few environmental issues unrelated to the impact of human overpopulation. Government regulations may seek to address the symptoms of overpopulation or environmental impact, but will do little to address the fundamental cause.

Thus, environmental policies of the hated former President Bush or the much-loved President Obama, or your support or opposition of such polices, will make no difference.

-- John Cartmell, Redmond

Aiding the Arctic

In his first international visit as president, President Obama pledged to work with Canada's government toward a clean-energy future. A vital part of this clean-energy future must be the protection of our shared wild places, including the Arctic region, suffering most from the impacts of global warming.

Over the past 50 years, global temperatures have increased an average of more than 1-degree Fahrenheit, but temperatures in the Arctic have increased by an average of 4 degrees.

After eight years of the Bush administration pushing to develop this region with no regard to the global impacts, both the United States and Canada must develop a comprehensive energy plan that includes protection for the land, water, wildlife and people of the Arctic.

As part of this plan, certain places in the Arctic must be kept off-limits, including the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as the "sacred place where life begins" to the people of the Gwich'in Nation, which is both American and Canadian land.

Any industrial development in the Arctic region must not compound the damage already done.

-- Kit McGurn, Seattle

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

Serving special interests, not vessels in distress

The proposal to station a tugboat at Neah Bay ["State coast may get coveted rescue tug," Local News, March 7] will benefit some special interests: residents of Neah Bay, who will benefit economically from the people and equipment stationed there, and the lucky tug company that wins the contract to park one of their boats on the coast and get paid for it.

It will not provide the environmental safety net that some would have us believe.

Every day, hundreds of active tugboats ply Puget Sound waters 24/7. At any one time, several of these big oceangoing tugs are in closer proximity to disabled vessels than a Neah Bay tug would be.

These are the tugs that currently respond to vessels in distress. Thanks to these working "rescue tugs," there has not been a drift grounding in Puget Sound since before World War II.

Further, wind and current conditions would push a disabled vessel north, away from the U.S. coastline -- and the Neah Bay tug's ability to chase it.

A better station for such a tug would be Tofino on Vancouver Island, where a tug could come out to meet a disabled vessel.

But, where's the financial benefit to U.S. special interests in that?

-- Peter Philips, Seattle

Model after the EU, not the do-nothing approach

If 40 percent of statistics are inaccurate and 60 percent are misleading, Todd Myers from the Washington Policy Center deserves a 100 percent for his special to The Times ["Create incentive to cut emissions with carbon price," guest column, Feb. 24].

Myers claims that the European Union is not on track to meet its emissions limit under the Kyoto Protocol. This is completely inaccurate; the EU is on track to use its cap-and-trade program, along with other complementary policies to reduce emissions and meet its Kyoto target.

Further, when talking about the EU's cap-and-trade program, the Washington Policy Center is using data from 2006 that was in the middle of the EU's initial trial period of their program, which ran from 2005 to 2007.

In fact, the first official phase of the program started in 2008 and has resulted in emissions reductions in its first year in operation.

Finally, Myers fails to mention that while the EU is on track to meet its Kyoto target (8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012) the U.S. will likely be more than 30 percent above 1990 levels come 2012. Clearly, the EU's plan has been more successful at reducing emissions than the do-nothing approach advocated by Myers and the Washington Policy Center.

-- Owen Atkins, Tacoma

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

Protecting millions of acres and dollars

Congress is on the verge of passing the largest expansion of the wilderness system in 15 years.

The bill, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, passed in Senate with a large majority and goes to the House for a vote early next week. As a Sierra Club member, I care deeply about this bill and what it means for our country.

The Omnibus bill will protect more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states, including American treasures like the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, Oregon's Mount Hood and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado.

Other key provisions would add permanence to the 26-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System, preserve over a million acres of Wyoming for hunting and fishing and protect hundreds of miles of free-flowing rivers in six states.

These wilderness areas and other protected lands provide great benefits to rural economies by increasing property values, providing new economic opportunities in recreation and tourism and creating desirable places for people to live, exercise and work.

I urge you to support this bill and the House of Representatives to vote yes on S. 22.

-- Fuoad Shashani, Kent

Carbon tax tops "cap and trade"

This week, I saw the release of a new report on the future of Washington's climate. Warren Cornwall aptly conveyed the urgency of the message in his article, "Report: Climate change to wallop state" [Local News, Feb. 11].

The report provides further confirmation that climate change is real and it is serious. We need to act now to avoid some of the worst consequences.

We need to put a price on carbon. This would favor clean energy over dirty energy and reward businesses and individuals who make energy efficiency a top priority.

Although more popular, "cap and trade" is too complex and much too slow. In contrast, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quick to implement, transparent and would not require complex-trading schemes.

Congress and the Obama administration intend to pass a climate-and-energy policy by Memorial Day. Now is the time to call on our elected representatives to protect our interests and those of our grandchildren.

-- Guillaume Mauger, Seattle

The vehicle needed to move forward

I'm writing this for the sake of my younger, 16-year-old sister. She can't vote yet, but I'm sure if she finds out about the problems outlined in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's new report ["Report: Climate change to wallop state," Local News, Feb. 11] she will endlessly bug her big brother until I do something to care for her future.

You can help me ensure that she enjoys the quality of life we've enjoyed by urging our state legislators to pass Gov. Christine Gregoire's "cap and invest" bill that is moving in the Legislature right now. This is the vehicle to allow Washington to move forward with the Western Climate Initiative.

We reduce our global-warming pollution and help shape the federal government's forthcoming climate legislation so Washington's citizens and businesses benefit. To me, this is common sense.

Washington has unique needs, so let's define what is right for our state by passing this legislation. I was one of 160 people who attended the Feb. 3 hearings in support of these bills and heard many speak in favor, including McKinstry, Northwest Carpenters, Solid Ground, Weber Shandwick, Seattle Northwest Securities, Spokane Alliance and Sound Alliance.

In his testimony, respected economist Bob Doppelt from the University of Oregon made very clear the cost to taxpayers and businesses. Like many good folks in this state, I am not interested in paying more for the inevitable increase in health and food costs and fighting forest fires.

I insist, endlessly if I must, that our state leaders pass the "cap and invest" bill to help protect our children and our economy.

-- Conner Sharpe, Seattle

Beware of experts

Thanks for your front-page report on the Washington climate-change study.

A few years ago, our nation allowed its president to take us to war based upon an unsubstantiated theory that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and might use them, despite the fact experts (weapons inspectors) said there were none.

Thousands of lives later, we learned the experts were correct.

Another group of experts have told us unless we reduce our CO2 emissions, global
warming may take the lives of all future generations.

When former President Bush said we can't wait for a mushroom cloud, most people accepted this theory. Now, many of the same people say the climate-change experts have not absolutely proven global warming is man-made or even that it is occurring.

They say let's wait and see. Even Bush has given up on this idea.

-- Robert Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle

In need of a sanity check

The Washington state Senate and House have bills that are designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions (SB 5735 and HB 1819). These bills will basically put a cap-and-trade system in place regarding CO2 emissions in our state. Companies can emit a particular amount of CO2 and then they must obtain vouchers for more emissions through a trade idea (market value) from companies that don't use their entire emission limits.

Essentially, businesses will leave Washington state due to the increase in production costs.

Also, there is a time frame where your driving will be evaluated and limits will be put on the amount you drive. You will have to trade for more driving time and mileage. The system is based on a European one, but data shows from 1998-2006, they decreased emissions by .42 percent. Yes, .42 percent.

We need a sanity check, desperately.

Don't allow these bills to pass. Let your representative know that we want to decide what is best and allow the free market to drive what technologies and energy forms we use.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Be willing to pay for a healthy environment

New hope for a cleaner Sound

According to your article about new rulings requiring stormwater-pollution reduction in Puget Sound ["Stormwater ruling a win for small cities," Around the Northwest, Feb. 3], small cities will have some time before they must adapt more-stringent, "low impact" development standards required of bigger cities and counties. Although the rules delay the day of reckoning, they point small city planners toward the same goals eventually.

There's another way to tackle the costly problem of reducing stormwater pollution in Puget Sound. It's in House Bill 1614, Invest in Clean Water, now being considered by the state Legislature.

This bill would fund critical water-quality projects across the state through polluter-pays fees levied directly on petroleum products possessed by companies in the state. This could provide more than $100 million each year to implement solutions in problem areas around the state.

Is this a fair way to pay to reduce stormwater pollution? Contaminated runoff from our roads and urban areas is the No. 1 water-pollution problem in the state. This pollution comes largely from petroleum products and makes up 90 percent of the surface-water pollution flowing into Puget Sound.

Both taxpayers and producers should pay for protections we need for a healthy environment.

-- Tim Bernthal, Seattle

Living in harmony with the predator

I wish to thank Sandi Doughton for reporting on recent research that documents the benefits wolves offer to ecosystems, and for informing the public of the adverse impacts rippling across the web of life when wolves are killed off ["Can wolves restore an ecosystem?" Times, page one, Jan. 25].

The studies performed by Oregon State University professors William Ripple and Robert Beschta invalidate the assumptions that early European settlers had, and some people today have, about the apex predator. As it turns out, many species benefit from the presence of wolves: aspen, willow, eagles, ravens and even fish.

Surprisingly, a recent study at Grand Teton National Park found that pronghorn fawn are surviving to adulthood at a higher rate because of wolves. It turns out that wolves scare away coyotes, who prey on newborn pronghorn. Running much too fast, pronghorn don't often elicit interest from wolf packs in the search for sustenance.

When I visited Yellowstone National Park two years ago, I saw gray wolves in the wild for the first time. Observing them, I was impressed by their sense of community, the genuine affection they show one another, and I was moved by their howls.

When Lewis and Clark traveled through the Pacific Northwest, they encountered a number of wolves; we should cherish our natural American heritage. I believe that with public education and sensitive management techniques, we can live harmoniously with this remarkable and endangered animal.

Millions of dollars have been dropped by tourists in the Yellowstone region wanting to see canis lupus in its natural habitat. Surely, lifting the economy is one ripple effect anyone can appreciate.

-- Mauricio Austin, Vancouver

A politically convenient compromise

Wolves are returning to Washington! This is one the most exciting things I have heard in my half century as a biologist and wildlife advocate. What worries me, though, is whether we will welcome their return or whether some will do everything possible to discourage their survival.

Biologists have learned a great deal about the recovery of endangered species. We need to build a long-term, sustainable population. This means having enough wolves to avoid inbreeding and enough wolves for the population to recover after disease epidemics or other catastrophes.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is considering a plan that would remove wolves from the state endangered species list when there are only 15 breeding pairs in the state. At that point, additional wolves could be killed to protect livestock or perhaps even hunted as big-game animals.

Fifteen wolf-breeding pairs translates to about 150 wolves. Biologists have determined minimum, genetically viable populations are closer to 500 animals. Fifteen breeding pairs is just a politically convenient compromise with those who would prefer no wolves at all.

If they accept this plan, our state wildlife agency will come up way short of what is really needed to help wolves survive.

Yes, it is very complex and the actual number varies from species to species and place to place. But, we must take into account this scientific information or we will never recover the wolf population in Washington state.

WDFW should convene a blue-ribbon panel to recommend a truly scientifically based conservation goal for wolves in the state.

-- John Edwards, Seattle

Boosting the ecosystem and the economy

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) was pleased to learn of the strong public support for returning wolves to Olympic National Park [ "Can wolves restore an ecosystem?" page one, Jan. 25]. Wolves are an important part of restoring the park's ecosystem and could benefit the local economy.

Since the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park, tourists visiting the park, hoping to see a wolf, spend $35 million each year. An entire cottage industry based on leading wolf tours has been created in the communities near Yellowstone.

NPCA and the tens of thousands we represent in Washington hope the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will listen to the growing numbers that overwhelmingly support wolf recovery.

-- David Graves, Seattle

The reason behind the number

A recent "Globalist Quiz" ["Quiz CO2 emissions: the magic number," News, Jan. 26] correctly indicated that the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is about 385 parts per million, but it failed to completely explain how and why it increased to that concentration.

Study of the Vostok and Taylor Dome Ice Cores from Antarctica shows that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was only 180 to 200 parts per million about 18,000 years ago near the end of the last glaciation. It began increasing as global temperatures rose during and long after the transition from cold glacial conditions to warmer interglacial conditions about 11,000 years ago.

These atmospheric carbon dioxide increases are known to have lagged behind the global temperature increases by several hundred years. They are also known to have been created by increases in the flux rate of carbon dioxide from marine and terrestrial ecosystems up into the atmosphere, as the global temperatures increased.

This "Globalist Quiz" has failed to identify how natural increases in global temperatures have been responsible for significant atmospheric carbon dioxide increases over the last 11,000 years.

-- Ken Schlichte, Tumwater

Bad chemistry

"The Globalist" ["Quiz CO2 emissions: the magic number," News, Jan. 26] got it very badly wrong on Monday with respect to its comments on the atmospheric chemistry of global warming: 440 parts per million is neither "a generally-accepted goal" for the average CO2 content of the atmosphere, nor is it "safe."

Such statements are profoundly wrongheaded. Perhaps they should be viewed as indicative of just how bad the consequences of the "mile wide and an inch deep" quality of science education really are ["Streamlined science-ed standards debated," Local News, Jan. 10].

The consequences of the current 385 parts per million (ppm) level are hardly "safe." And while the Keeling Curve is perhaps the only truly meaningful "threat level" scale commonly used today, perhaps the more dangerous condition is not so much the condition of the atmosphere. Rather, perhaps it's the public's lack of preparedness to see it as such, and thus to be adequately alarmed by its implications.

-- Craig Dupler, Seattle

AP Photo / U.S. Fish & Wildlife

A gray wolf rests in tall grass in this undated photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Gray wolves have been taken off the federal Endangered Species Act list in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

Editor, The Times:

As an elk hunter, I always keep up on the latest sentiment regarding wolves. Sandi Doughton's article hit numerous "hot buttons" of the debate, yet most of the issues hunters and ranchers subscribe to were buried in the end of the article ["Can wolves restore an ecosystem?" Times, page one, Jan. 25].

Front-page readers were greeted with an emotive introductory sentence: "No trace remains of the wolves whose howls ricocheted for millennia down the lush valleys of the Olympic Peninsula."

Though the efficacy of wolf predation on certain species is not in dispute, introduction of canis lupus (the gray wolf) opens the proverbial Pandora's box of problems, such that once introduced, wolves propagate quickly and, if not controlled through hunting, create as many problems as they may solve.

Wolves are a majestic predator, but we seem to have a fascination with them as something sacrosanct. Wolves have devastating effects on elk herds and other wildlife and, contrary to popular belief, do not hunt only what they need.

Yet, as Doughton stated, it's illegal to hunt wolves, except in rare circumstances. Yet wolves are so fruitful in Alaska and Canada, they are considered vermin by many.

Wolves may indeed be the panacea forests and certain species of wildlife need for recovery, but they can also become prolific in a short period of time.

Many decent, nature-loving people are erroneously loath to see wolves hunted to regulate their numbers and range, to the chagrin of others.

-- Thomas Martens, Bothell

Sympathy for the elk

It's easy to believe that an overabundance of elk is causing environmental problems in Olympic National Park ["Can wolves restore an ecosystem?" Times, page one, Jan. 25]. And certainly, wolves would help with that, though they would also create problems for ranchers, which is why wolves were eliminated in the first place.

One would think that the easiest solution would be to allow hunting of the elk by humans, but this possibility is dismissed with the words, ". . . killing of animals inside a national park would not be popular. Wolves are."

I think your reporter is forgetting that the elk are killed in either case. Either they are killed by a shot from a hunter, or they are killed by the teeth of a pack of wolves.

Were I an elk, I know which I would prefer.

-- Jeff Evans, Kirkland

One species endangered, several preserved

Wolf advocates just won't give up on selling the wolf as the answer to all ecology problems. What is missing in this discussion are the advocates of elk, deer and, in Alaska, caribou.

Have you looked into the precipitous declines of those animals after the introduction of wolves? Go find out what happened to Yellowstone, Montana and Idaho deer and elk herds after the wolf packs were reintroduced and what will happen to Washington herds now that wolves are in Northeastern Washington.

Go confirm that the caribou population in Denali National Park was reduced from 22,000 to 2,000 after the reintroduction of wolves. Go find out that the reproductive capability of these herds is hamstrung by wolves killing the calves, not just the weak and old animals.

Wolves are not the answer.

-- Ronald Riedasch, Anacortes

Promoting an un-green lifestyle

"Vision meets reality" [Pacific Northwest magazine, Jan. 25], about the Preston-area home, highlighted the structure's architectural beauty. But, it also promoted new-home construction in rural areas, which degrades the environment. The home in the article resulted in:

-- Using extensive resources to construct almost 5,000 square-feet of livable space;

-- Increasing impervious area (home, guesthouse, garage, driveway), which facilitates rainfall runoff and reduces groundwater recharge;

-- Removing native vegetation, which eliminates wildlife habitat; and

-- Discouraging the presence of certain wildlife species that are sensitive to ecological disturbances such as houses, light, noise and pets.

But, perhaps the most significant impact of this home and many others that are built in rural areas is their dependency on privately-owned vehicles. Typically, many more gallons of gas are spent by rural dwellers because of their long commutes than city dwellers who live closer to work, shopping, and recreational activities.

Please stop glorifying rural living. While living in forested areas can, as reported by the homeowners, "allow you to feel like you're living in the trees," it damages our planet. It is a lifestyle you should not continue to extol.

-- Josh Kahan, Seattle

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

Leave the kids alone

While asthma sufferers are forced to go "green," the corporate polluters that are a major cause of the asthma epidemic are free to continue to cause sickness, environmental degradation and climate change ["Asthma sufferers must go 'green' on inhalers this week," News, Dec. 28].

Perhaps some of the billions of dollars that U.S. automakers received from the public trough should go to the 6.8 million children who have asthma so that they too can buy pollution rights and continue to use their lifesaving resuscitators, which cause as little as .5 percent of all ozone depletion.

This would be especially just since many of the children whose families will not be able to afford the new "green" inhaler, which costs twice as much as the older device, live near freeways and other highly polluted areas.

Reducing ozone depletion is a very commendable endeavor, but let's not do it on the backs of the victims of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has failed to do its job and has instead opted to protect the profit margins of major polluters.

-- Suzanne Oelke, Seattle

Do not forsake us

As the co-owner of a small, Seattle-based company, I was surprised to read that Gov. Christine Gregoire plans to give away pollution permits in the state's groundbreaking cap-and-trade program ["Governor favors mostly free permits for polluters," Politics & Government," Dec. 13]. This is the worst possible decision for Washington consumers and small businesses.

We've come this far, blazing the trail for smart, effective policy to slow global warming and build a robust clean-energy economy (with good jobs and local industries) for the state. The governor should be commended for all the progress we've made. Why backpedal now?

By giving away permits instead of auctioning them for the public good, Gregoire is making the decision to hand windfall profits to oil companies at the expense of consumers. What's more tragic is that it's just as easy to do this right. Designed with protections for local families, cap-and-trade generates revenue for investments in our communities, for rebating energy costs directly to Washington consumers, and for creating good jobs and stabilizing our economy. Investments like these not only take care of immediate economic woes, but they position our state to lead as the nation and world moves to clean-energy technology.

We have an opportunity to do this right. There's no good reason that Gregoire would make the decision to forsake Washington's families as we move into a cleaner, greener era.

-- Judith Dailey, Seattle

Fix it now

Just in time for Christmas, President George W. Bush has decided to trade the Southern Appalachian landscape for a lump of coal ["Environmental groups sue over EPA mining rule," Politics, Dec. 22].

The Bush administration has finalized a last-minute rule making it easier for mining companies to blow the tops off mountains to get to the coal underneath. Before this "midnight rollback," mining was prohibited within 100 feet of vulnerable rivers and streams. Even with that buffer, hundreds of miles of rivers and streams have been lost to mountaintop-removal mining. Now we are sure to lose even more.

These last-minute rollbacks of our environmental protections can't be allowed to stand.

President-elect Barack Obama will have a lot on his plate when he takes office Jan. 20. I want his administration to start the new year out right, by immediately taking steps to undo Bush's midnight environmental rollbacks.

-- Danny Cowan, Madrona

Sell them instead

By planning to give away free pollution permits in her cap-and-trade program, Gov. Christine Gregoire is missing a huge opportunity to invest in Washington's economy and learn from those who have come before us ["Governor favors mostly free permits for polluters," Politics & Government," Dec. 13].

The governor should be commended for moving legislation forward to reduce global warming. Strong climate policy will strengthen Washington's economy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, giving permits away for free is a huge mistake.

In Europe's cap-and-trade program, they found that even though businesses were given pollution permits for free, they still raised prices and sold the permits, resulting in massive windfall profits at the expense of consumers. To remedy this, the EU [European Union] has announced its plans to move toward 100 percent auction.

Similarly, America's first cap-and-trade program that started in the Northeast this year will auction just about all of their pollution permits, investing the new revenue in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy.

And just recently, California announced its plans to auction all pollution permits when it implements the Western Climate Initiative.

The governor should move forward with her pollution-reduction plan and the Washington Legislature should adopt it. But it needs to be a plan that builds on those already in existence and auctions the right to pollute.

Auctioning pollution permits will create new revenue that can be invested in growing the clean-energy economy in our state, creating thousands of well-paid, green-collar jobs and helping families already struggling with high energy costs.

-- Joelle Robinson, Seattle

Seawater for everyone

I'm pleased to see Greg Gordon's inset box explaining that climate scientists really don't fully understand the role of water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere ["Amateur dreams up way to curb warming of planet," Nation & World, Dec. 21]. Their complicated computer models of Earth's atmosphere and of the future of our climate (on which all projections of future climate are based) are very uncertain.

However, I believe we can avoid global warming if Ace's idea is implemented. His idea also will protect us from several other equally likely catastrophes, such as elephants trampling Seattle's flower gardens.

-- James Wooster, Lake Tapps

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

Drill, baby, drill

The extreme environmentalists' anxiety for the Northwest to blaze a path to a green grid overlooks the unintended consequences of energy production by governmental edict and the significant role market forces play in this arena ["Northwest may blaze U.S. path to green grid," News, Dec. 15]. As the BPA [Bonneville Power Administration] has warned, variable wind power requires large amounts of balancing services to back up times when the wind isn't blowing. This could be expensive.

As The Times' article on this subject pointed out, there are 31 federally owned dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries that deliver power to the Northwest. We are currently spending millions of dollars to preserve salmon runs inhibited by these dams. The government's subsidizing of biofuels didn't consider the resulting higher prices and shortage of food for the world's population, deforestation, loss of habitat and dead sea zones caused by fertilizer runoffs.

Aramco, Saudi Arabia's nationalized oil company, has recently discovered oil reserves far exceeding their previous oil reserves. They estimate a continuous supply of this newly discovered oil for at least 50 years. The tapping of this oil will be done with the latest lateral drilling technology so as not to disturb the pristine nature of the Saudi desert. Perhaps we could learn some lessons from the Arabians, who certainly learned from us.

-- Bob Dorse, Seattle

Get real

Once again, the scientific minds of folks who look at local, momentary weather patterns and determine that global warming is a hoax (all because they're cold), are put on display, this time by Steve Keeler ["Global what?," Northwest Voices, Dec. 16].

Kind of like saying the U.S. doesn't have a trash problem because Chicago is so clean. Keeler has not kept up on reports that show the ice pack of Greenland disappearing at record speed, or that ice shelves in the Antarctic, which have been solid for as long as there have been surveys, have drifted off to sea and aren't refreezing.

There are no more "snows of Kilimanjaro." The Arctic polar ice cap is going to be gone in a few years, and the Northwest Passage, once the scourge of northern sailors, is now easily navigable. If the northern polar ice cap melts completely, the "great conveyor belt" of the northern Atlantic will cease to be, and Europe will be locked in a permanent ice age.

Global warming causes bizarre local weather events -- some of them cold.

-- Sten Ryason, Seattle

Global what?

Boy, with all this global warming, I'm freezing to death ["It's only begun: More snow, cold temperatures expected," page one, Dec. 15].

Just where is all that heat hiding now when we could really use some?
Wasn't our governor promising that the Cascades would be suffering snow-free droughts by now? Maybe the Seattle climate-action-now people have an answer.

I know, the City Council can build an entire network of trolleys, without any source of funding; surely then they can figure this one out.

To be safe, call former Vice President Al Gore on this right away. I think he's on vacation at the North Pole, now that it's a sauna.

I greatly appreciate your assistance on this hot issue.

-- Steve Keeler, Seattle

A lucky region

I was delighted to see the recent article on Northwest Watershed Institute's Tarboo watershed protection and restoration work in Pacific Northwest Magazine ["One creek, on patch of land at a time," Nov. 30]. The article by seasoned Seattle Times writer Warren Cornwall and photographer Alan Berner is a wonderful look at the beauty and challenge of trying to protect a bit of Puget Sound for future generations. However, though the description of our work as "one man and his band" may sound heroic, it is a far cry from how things are actually getting done.

While Northwest Watershed Institute has taken the lead in initiating and coordinating many aspects of the Tarboo watershed project, our success has come from strong partnerships with many landowners, as well as the talented and dedicated staff that work for more than 20 state, federal, tribal and nonprofit organizations. I only wish that the article had spread the credit around to those who richly earned it.

Chief among those deserving special mention is Jude Rubin, NWI's stewardship director and botanist who started our hugely popular Plant-A-Thon, where hundreds of local schoolchildren and their parents raise money for their schools by selling honorary tree cards and planting thousands of trees at restoration sites every year. Sean Gallagher, who has worked in the field for NWI since 2003, helped with everything from the original stream habitat surveys to supervising restoration crews. Wonderful people with the Jefferson Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, four tribes that share treaty rights in Hood Canal, and numerous county, state, federal and tribal agencies and nonprofits have worked in ways large and small to help projects succeed.

A diversity of funding programs have allowed NWI to make on-the-ground progress. Key to success in wetland acquisition has been the Pacific Coast Joint Venture Program, particularly their National Coastal Wetlands grant program. The USDA's [United States Department of Agriculture's] Natural Resource Conservation Service's Wetland Reserve Program is NWI's largest of many restoration funding sources that also include the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington's Aquatic Land Enhancement Account, Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation and Bullitt Foundation among others.

Having just talked with a biologist from Texas, I am extremely grateful that here in Puget Sound we have so many people and organizations working together to try to protect and restore one the best places left on Earth.

-- Peter Bahls, Port Townsend

Not just for the birds

Lynda Mapes' excellent story from Monday, Dec. 8, "Suburban sprawl invites birds of a different feather"describes the situation that I get calls about almost daily from Audubon members and other concerned citizens across the state [News].

They are mad as hell when they see massive suburban developments with " ScraperVille" moonscapes where there was once a little patch of forest or native meadow which once thrived and supported a rich mixture of birds and other wildlife.

These large and small areas of native trees and shrubs slow stormwater, replenish aquifers, cleanse runoff water that flows into salmon streams and Puget Sound and make the "place just a little more livable."

John Marzluff's research confirms the decline of our common birds, a precipitous decline that Audubon has been documenting since 2004 when our first "State of the Birds" report was published. We still worry about endangered birds, and now we realize we have to focus even more on our own backyards so that common birds stop declining.

Is losing our common birds inevitable? We think not.

Earlier this year, Audubon worked with the state legislature to pass the Evergreen Communities Act, one of the top four Priorities for a Healthy Washington supported by all conservation groups.

Kudos to our legislators for passing this new law that begins to set higher standards to prevent ScraperVilles. Audubon is now working with state agencies on a model ordinance that cities and counties could adopt to prevent disastrous development of the kind that Dr. Marzluff calls "nuke sites."

Though the Evergreen Communities Act did not include funding to help local governments adopt the model standards, local communities can act on their own to do the right thing. Armed with the compelling information from Mapes' story, we can urge our city council members to adopt the new Evergreen Community standards, because saving native plants and diverse habitat is not just for the birds.

-- Nina Carter, Olympia

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.

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

In our own backyard

Puget Sound is drowning in toxins, depleted of salmon and filled with invasive species that are destroying its wonder, beauty and its wildlife.

In January of this year, the Northwest region of NOAA's [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's] National Marine Fisheries Service submitted a 251-page document of a recovery plan for this Northwest icon and how to best address the environmental problems of Puget Sound.

It has taken NOAA years to determine that the best way to save our beloved orca and clean the Sound is to "support salmon restoration, clean up existing contaminants, prevent oil spills, enhance public awareness and educate the public on actions they can participate in" as well as several other solutions.

Nonprofit organizations such as Orca Network, The Center for Whale Research, Save our Wild Salmon, Cascadia Research, People for Puget Sound and many others have been saying these things for years and it has fallen on deaf ears.

How long will it take before our Legislature, governor and the businesses that continue to pollute Puget Sound begin to do something about it? The time is now.

We can no longer wait to reverse the damage we have done to one of the most beautiful, abundant and extraordinary ecosystems in the world. It is a gift to live in such proximity to stellar sea lions, harbor seals, peregrine falcons, eagles, humpbacks, minke whales and orcas. This is all in our own backyard. Most people will never have the opportunity to see such spectacular wildlife in their lives, yet, we continue to harm Puget Sound, delay its cleanup and ignore the facts.

It has taken years to destroy Puget Sound and it will take years to restore it. We must stop procrastinating and begin working together -- vigorously, eagerly and passionately – on the solutions necessary to improve the Sound's health and in sustaining its wildlife.

-- Paris Luce, Kirkland

Can we say, "conflict of interest"?

The story in today's Seattle Times about outgoing Public Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland presents a fair picture of the facts surrounding the situation ["State signs lease for new dock to expand Maury Island mine," News, Dec. 3].

What it does not do, however, is ask the very critical question of why a defeated candidate for re-election, who received a $50,000 contribution from Glacier Northwest (funneled through the Committee for Balanced Stewardship, which campaigned for Sutherland's re-election) is permitted to approve a request from that same contributor as he is about to leave office.

I'm not an expert on the Washington state ethics laws, but there is an obvious conflict of interest that must be addressed.

Preserve Our Islands, a Vashon-based not-for-profit that is fighting Glacier's plans to expand the gravel mine in question, will surely raise those questions in court. However, all Washington residents need to consider the impact of such contributions and the appearance of conflict of interest that has occurred. Our lawmakers in Olympia should re-examine our ethics rules and amend them if necessary to prohibit elected officials from taking action on any matter that involves contributors to their campaigns.

-- Stephen Benowitz, Vashon

Connect the dots

You stated that "The role of a healthy, robust Sound in the region's environmental landscape, economy and Northwest soul is well understood" and I hope that is true ["Sound Advice For Olympia," editorial, Dec. 3]. However, in more than one past editorial you have dismissed the decadelong opposition to a large gravel mine on Maury Island as "NIMBYISM," which leads me to wonder how well you understand it.

On page B5 of the same day's paper, there was a story about outgoing Public Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland's issuance of a 30-year lease to Glacier Northwest for it to build a massive new dock to expand its gravel mine. For heaven's sake, please connect the dots. Glacier's mine is not a NIMBY issue; it's about the health of Puget Sound and the sanity in governmental response to environmental problems.

-- Edna Dam, Vashon

Assault on the senses

Now that the third runway at Sea-Tac Airport is being used, the trial balloon of a fourth runway has been released.

As a 30-year resident near the flight paths I can see why the Port of Seattle wants to continue its assault on our senses.

For all the battles against further expansion of Sea-Tac Airport we give the Port a blank check. We are pawns in the Port's progressive cementing of our neighborhood.

We fight in the courts, lose and wind up paying higher costs through our taxes.

Never mind the Port of Seattle has raised its budget 11 percent while other entities of government are cutting back. We are subjected suckers to the Port's excessive spending.

Time for another secret sweet lunch for Port executives and contractors to plan to spend that next 11 percent at our expense.

Instead of three martinis, it'll be two. Times are tough you know.

-- Bill Wippel, Normandy Park

The Associated Press

A baby orca is seen swimming between family members of K-pod off the southern coast of San Juan Island in June 3.

Help them survive

Editor, The Times:

This is such an unfortunate turn of events for our resident orca whales ["Are orcas starving? UW puts Lab on case," Times, News, Nov. 19]. Their population has already been reduced to under 90 members and now they lose another seven.

There is no excuse for why these whales are disappearing, especially if the culprit is starvation. I know most people won't agree but I really believe we should put a halt to salmon fishing altogether ¬ at least until the population can make a comeback.

We as people have so many other alternatives for food. We have billions of animals slaughtered every year that are served up in various dishes.

We have people who feel it's necessary to go out and hunt wild game. We have other types of fish to choose from that aren't so threatened. and not only that but There are is also farmed salmon available.

I know there's good money in it and that wild salmon is a Pacific Northwest staple but so are the whales and I think The whales deserve our greatest effort at a chance for survival.

-- Allison McGinnis, Des Moines

Greg Gilbert / The Seattle Times

Sea-Tac's new, $1 billion runway spawned lawsuits, delays and a federal probe. United Airlines Flight 197 was the first airplane to land on the new runway.

Break out the Roundup

Editor, The Times:
Some things never go away ["As third runway opens at Sea-Tac, some seek a fourth," page one, Nov. 20].
The Port of Seattle wanted the third runway on their turf.

Snohomish County residents, despite the residential origin of demand in north King County and Snohomish County, accommodated the Port of Seattle's aspirations to externalize their costs to South King County.

The obvious resource for airport expansion was (and remains) McChord Air Force Base. However, McChord lies in Pierce County, so no control and no glory for Port of Seattle and much less construction work for local supporters.

With nudges from Rep. Norm Dicks and the rest of Washington state, Eastern Washington would have been giddy with visions of the military and civilian work force. That already exaggerated air-traffic growth will not be coming for a very, very long time.

If anyone still thinks the third runway was a good idea, I've got another surefire investment: WaMu. A better bet will be Roundup to keep the weeds down until those planes show up.

--Bill Duroe, Seattle

Quit dragging your heels

"Gregoire's panel looked at high-speed rail as an alternative to more in-state flights, but concluded it was not likely to supply relief by the 2030 planning target." ["As third Sea-Tac runway opens, some seek a fourth," page one, Nov. 20]

How shortsighted. If we plan for high-speed rail now, just like California voters approved recently, a fourth runway will not be needed.

Currently, there are more than 60 takeoffs and landings for Seattle-to-Portland flights every day, nearly 50 for Seattle-to-Spokane and more than 20 for Seattle-to-Vancouver, B.C. Most of these can be eliminated if travelers can get from downtown Seattle to Portland or Vancouver in one hour and to Spokane in under two hours.

The benefits of high-speed rail along the I-5 and I-90 corridors extend well beyond the need to expand Sea-Tac's capacity. Rail travel, with no greenhouse-gas emissions, is "green" travel. High-speed rail along heavily traveled corridors would reduce construction of more freeway miles.

Conversely, design and construction of rail lines provide tangible "green economy" jobs to Washington state, Oregon and British Columbia. And, should population and economic growth in future decades necessitate air-traffic capacity expansion, high-speed rail would make Bellingham and Moses Lake plausible "satellite airport" candidates.

--Leo Egashira, Seattle

Use what we've got

$57 million of my and other Americans' tax money says that the airport near Everett should be used for the purpose for which it was built.

But with all due respect to Paine Field, wouldn't it be appropriate for commercial planes to fly over Mukilteo to and from the newly renamed "Eyman Airfield"?

-- George Randels, Port Townsend

Air travel safety

3 oz. toothpaste, 3 oz. shampoo, 3 oz. lotion and 3 oz. Pepto-Bismol -- all zipped in a clear, quart-sized bag.
Shoes off, no gel-filled inserts allowed, but my 1 lb., gel-filled breast prosthesis is legal and doesn't have to be declared to the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] as I pass through security to board my plane?

Can't we get see the inconsistent irony of these ridiculous "safety" precautions that do nothing to make air travel safer? Enough already.

-- Kay Schellberg, Seattle

The killing continues

Mari Yamaguchi from The Associated Press has misrepresented information in her story "Japanese whalers set sail on hunt" dated Nov. 18, 2008 [Nation & World].

The story implies that Greenpeace will "will disrupt the expedition once again" and that is not true. Despite having millions of dollars in donations to stop the whale killings, Greenpeace will not be sending a ship to the Antarctic waters this year, choosing rather to protest in Japanese courts.

In years past, including last year, Greenpeace ships only stayed a few weeks of the two to three month whaling season and followed the Japanese fleet at a distance hanging banners off the side of the Greenpeace ship.

Last year, Greenpeace left the whaling waters weeks before the Japanese were forced to leave from the efforts of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, cutting short their killings quotas by about 50 percent. Greenpeace chooses to not put their ships between a whale and the Japanese ships, never tries to alter the course of Japanese ships and frankly has not saved even one whale from being slaughtered.

Only the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society will have a ship there this year, and each year the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society keeps their ship(s) truly disrupting the whalers by putting their ships and crew at risk for as long as their fuel lasts.

The story says that the Sea Shepherd crew threw acid onto the Japanese whaling ships. The acid was actually rancid butter. Butyric Acid comprises the smell found in rancid butter. It stinks and is slippery. It is biodegradable and nontoxic. The Japanese crews hate it because it is as hard to clean up off the deck as skunk smell would be.

I would not weigh having butter "injuries" to having been shot at by the Japanese, as Paul Watson was.

Japan has never published any meaningful research papers from the supposed valuable information gained by killing 1,000 whales each year and the International Whaling Commission ban is not enforced by any country -- that is the main reason countries like Japan continue to kill whales.

The research excuse is a loophole that Japan flagrantly misinterprets. It is time the world learns of this terrible injustice to whales and Japan's illegal killings of intelligent mammals.

-- Mike Pagan, Seattle

You're all sick

I heard that the city of Seattle allows people to ride their bikes naked ["Flash: Parks may ban nudity," News, Nov. 13].

What sicko said that was OK? There is a prophecy that the city of Seattle will be destroyed by a huge earthquake and there is one on the way next year. The space needle will be laying on its side and all the buildings will be rubble.

I would say this will be well-deserved to such a perverse place.

-- Marietta Alexander, Everett

And so it goes

I have lived in several states and been to many countries at different times in my life. I grew up in the South, but from my earliest memories, I knew I needed to live in the Northwest.

In 1996, after many failed attempts to find a home in a state close to my family, I followed my heart to the the "emerald city" in the "evergreen state."

I remember when I first crossed the Cascade mountains -- the smells of sweetgrass, Firs, Blue Spruce and Pine trees. The air was fresh and clean from the rain, the water was cool and clear and the mountains were snow-capped and as beautiful as a painting. I found myself thanking the maker of this pristine part of the world for allowing me to live in this sacred place.

But as the days and months and years passed by, I began to notice a change. Wherever I went, I saw the trees being cut down to make homes, apartments and other buildings for all the other "new" people who came here.

Over the years, there has been less rain but, when it does rain, the rivers overflow their banks and mudslides occur because of the loss of so many trees. Since I came to this wonderful place, the air and water are not as fresh and clean and there is less snow in the mountains.

People who did not care about this beautiful place came and went for jobs. As these people came and went, a foul stain remained.

It has been 12 years now, and what I see saddens me. Where once there was a forest, now stands an empty $1 million house, or a half-filled apartment complex, or a car lot. But the trees are still being felled and new things are being built next to these places.

People like me, who came and walked softly on this land, can barely afford to live where our hearts brought us.

I wonder what names this state and this city will be called when the trees are gone, no rain falls, and the mountaintops are no longer white with snow. I try to leave no mark on the places I go, but so many others do not follow my example.

Maybe if we act swiftly and ardently, we can change our path. Our fate is in the peoples' hands. That includes you.

We do not own the land. Mother Nature does not count dollar bills; she counts the weight of our footsteps. Remember those who walked before us and think about those who will come after.
I will end this letter with the words of the Great Chief after whom this city is named:

"Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hill-
side, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or
happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb
and dead as they swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories
of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust
upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than
yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet
are conscious of the sympathetic touch."
— Chief Seattle's Oration, Puget Sound (1854)

-- Lisa Warner, Everett

Tick tock

While raising our granddaughter, who is now 3 years old, I wonder what is going to happen in her future. Will there still be personal vehicles when she is old enough to drive? Will she be able to walk outside without worrying about getting cancer? Will there still be polar ice caps for her to wonder over?

In my life, I have seen changes I never thought would happen.

So what does her future hold? We have had the technology to go green for more than 100 years when the first diesel engine was invented to run on peanut oil. We have allowed the special-interest groups to blind us with their TV ads and depended on the wrong groups of people to watch out for our futures.

Now is time to take back our futures, to have a say in how our lives evolve.

Going green is entirely possible. It would create jobs, make our world a much better place to live in. It would give us hope of a clean world -- free of the toxins we have so eagerly thrown around for years believing they were safe.

I miss the green, wild and clean world I grew up in. In my lifetime, I have seen the greatest "accidents" happen to our world -- ruining habitats for ever. I have seen the extinction of many species that will never return to our world.

Our planet is like a giant watch; we cannot keep removing little parts of it without it failing.

-- Joseph Risenhoover, East Wenatchee

Go solar

If the Gates Foundation is wondering what more can be done besides education, health care or elimination of poverty, try solar energy.

One definition of being poor is lack of energy; one definition of being rich is having energy to waste. Solar energy allows the poverty-struck to make their own energy.

To a rich man, solar cooking is a joke. A rich man has electricity, charcoal, gas or propane. But to a refugee surrounded by land mines, a solar cooker is their only energy source. When you are sick, solar hot water is essential. Photoelectrics can power essential communications.

Concentrated sunlight can melt glass, distill water for drinking or refrigerate medicines. Bill Gates has a vision of eliminating poverty via better communications, I have another vision: eliminating poverty via renewable energy.

But this will not happen when capital investment for manufacturing for renewable energy is nonexistent. For example, Bill Gates is part owner of a coal-power plant on Navajo Indian land in New Mexico. He could be supportive of engineers and scientists who have been researching how to convert it economically to be solar-powered. Conversion of fossil-fuel-power plants to renewable energy would reduce global warming, environmental damage and resulting poverty.

The Gates Foundation would do wonders if it were more supportive of solar technology.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

Let's make more enemies

I am outraged at today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that permits the U.S. Navy to make sonar blasts in nearshore environments when it is known that such blasts can harm, even kill, whales and other marine mammals ["Supreme Court OKs sonar use off Calif. coast," News, Nov. 13].

The U.S. is very good at making enemies around the world, thus the given reason for these blasts as "national security" measures, but it is indicative of our greed, selfishness and folly that in trying to secure our future we show so little concern for the intricate web of life, marine mammals included, upon which all of us ultimately depend.

Shame on the Supreme Court, the Bush administration and the U.S. Navy.

-- Jim Rettig, Woodinville

Consider this

The "road to destruction" in Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Cold Bay, Alaska, would describe the effect that a road through the middle of the refuge would have ["Alaskans debate road through refuge," Nation & World, Nov. 9].

The story describes that it would be unprecedented to build a road through a critical wildlife refuge. It would probably be used to transport equipment by Shell Oil.

The story failed to mention why Izembek is so critical to wildlife. The entire North American population of more than 150,000 Brandt geese spend their summers there feeding on the largest eelgrass flats on the continent; they breed and raise their young there. Some 23,000 endangered emperor geese and 55,000 taverner geese also summer here.

Brandt look like Canada geese, but spend their time on Puget Sound and in other saltwater areas during the late fall and winter. One oil spill and the entire Brandt population would quickly vanish from Alaska, Canada and the U.S. forever.

-- Gene Jarstad, Seattle

Penalize dirty cars

Hurray for the Puget Sound Partnership draft action agenda ["Partnership releases blueprint for restoring Puget Sound," News, Nov. 6].

Now let's really get to it. My experience as an activist/volunteer for Washington State University Extension, Marine Resources Committee and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has taught me that the talk and planning don't mean much until the dirt goes under the nails.

In Warren Cornwall's story about the release of the draft plan, he points out that the problem is not about a lack of ways to tackle the challenges. I have a modest proposal for one of the most pervasive problems: the stormwater runoff that flushes at least 52 million pounds of petroleum, toxic metals and other pollutants into the Sound every year, according to David Dicks, the partnership's executive director.

It is very simple: As vehicle license registration renewals come due, require the cars to drive through a "no drip" inspection using a strip of recycled paper to detect obvious leaks. This process would be low-tech and low-cost. If the car does not pass, their registration will not be renewed.

I am confident that fines from noncompliance could easily fund a good share of the expense; it could be rolled out in a matter of a few months and would deliver a measurable change within one year. Instead of spending billions and trying to find ways to expand the plan, let's take a simple step. Cheap, fast and effective.

-- Steve Bailey, Bellingham

Follow the second path

I read the news of the Nov. 6 release of the Puget Sound Partnership's plan ["Draft plan released for Sound recovery," News, Nov. 7] with interest, but without much optimism. The Partnership has done a commendable job of identifying many of Puget Sound's most severe problems and recommending measures to address them.

What is lacking, however, are specific prescriptions as to what agencies must take, what actions by what dates, how compliance will be enforced and how much money will come from what sources to pay for it all.
If it is true that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it, then we should recall that we are supposed to be well on the way to healing the Sound.

In 1985, facing abundant evidence of an environmental crisis, our state government created the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority with the mission of charting a path back to health. In 1996, the Authority was recast as the Puget Sound Action Team. The problem was that the Authority never had adequate authority, and the Action Team took little meaningful action.

Consequently, Puget Sound is in worse condition today than in 1985, and another decade of reports and unenforceable recommendations will not reverse the decline. It's crunch time. The state of Washington must take a hard look in the mirror and decide whether we are going to continue business as usual and accept the death of Puget Sound, or invest the funds and establish the enforceable standards necessary for the Partnership to achieve its stated goal of restoring it to health by 2020.
The first path is easier, but the second is right.

-- C. Thomas Schaefer, Seattle

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

AP Photo / Center for Whale Research, Kelley Balcomb-Bartok

A baby orca is seen swimming between family members of K-pod off the southern coast of San Juan Island June 3.

Save the whales

Editor, The Times:

As recently reported in The Seattle Times, seven resident orcas have disappeared from Puget Sound, almost 10 percent of the total population ["7 orcas, regular visitors to Sound, likely dead," Times, Nation and World, Oct. 25].

Orcas have been part of this landscape for more than 2 million years, but if this trend continues, they will soon be extinct.

In 2005, the southern resident orcas were designated an endangered species, an important step in stemming their decline. The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) fought the listing.

As critical as the orcas are to the health, economy and identity of our state, the BIAW sued to remove the "endangered" designation.

The suit was eventually dismissed, but what does this say about the priorities of the BIAW, and the candidate they so strongly back, gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi?

Washington state without orcas is unthinkable for most of us. But to survive, they need swift, effective action to restore salmon, remove toxic pollution and regulate vessels.

Gov. Christine Gregoire's commitment to cleaning up Puget Sound by 2020 is a strong step in the right direction.

Anyone who cares about orcas and Puget Sound should realize that a vote for Rossi and his backers is a huge step in the wrong direction -- a decision the orcas might not survive.

-- Donna Sandstrom, Seattle

What about scare tactics?

Humans always want to have their cake and eat it too -- or in this case, elk ["Elk in Packwood could soon be hunted," News, Oct. 15].

Whenever people start moving into the animals' territory, it's a given they will have nowhere else to go but backyards, and in Packwood's case, in front yards.

It's exasperating that on the one hand people go out of their way to feed the elk, and then when they come around for free food, people get annoyed when they trample their yards.

You can't have it both ways. But as is usually the case, when a few people complain, killing the animals is always the first solution.

Put the guns and bows and arrows away and come up with a humane plan. What about scare tactics or some sort of barrier. Maybe the people who can't stand a less-than-perfect yard could move.

It sounds absolutely insane to expand the hunting areas, making them closer to the freeway.

Humans and wildlife can live together, but the humans need to be a little more creative and patient and a lot less willing to resolve conflicts with weapons.

-- Gayle Janzen, 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

Where's my laxative?

It was remarkable to learn today that laxative sales go up during a recession "because people are under tremendous stress, and holding themselves back" ["As economy sinks, laxative sales grow, smoking drops," Nation & World, Oct. 19]. That explains the sudden clenching I felt when I read The Times' endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor ["Rossi for governor," Times, editorial, Oct. 19].

Remembering that The Times endorsed President George W. Bush in 2000, I searched The Times' archives and found the following summary statement: "We [The Times] recommend [George W. Bush, Republican, for President] for integrity and civility in office, for a realistic balance between government and commerce, a fair tax policy, and a new, bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation".

I urge the editors to raise their hands, say, "Oops, my bad" and reconsider their current endorsement.
Rossi's record, grossly negative campaign, questionable fundraising and religious fundamentalism all bear the stench of a Republican brand that has proved itself politically and morally bankrupt (and has rendered many Americans financially bankrupt).

Endorsing Rossi "because he can best be trusted to erase the state's huge projected deficit without raising taxes" reads like your above endorsement for Bush in 2000, especially the part about "a fair tax policy."

Please, don't be fooled again.

-- Ed Leach, Seattle

Keepin' it green

As Puget Sound teeters on the brink of collapse, your endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is nothing short of appalling.

Sure, Rossi says he's green, but he opposes taking the decisive action needed; that's why he's the darling of the BIAW [Building Industry Association of Washington].

Here's an example of what we could expect from a Rossi administration. Back in 2006, Rossi backed Initiative 933 -- an anti-environment, anti-neighborhood measure to force taxpayers to compensate developers who saw their profit margins "damaged" by environmental rules. I-933 was so bad that Gov. Christine Gregoire, all six living former governors and nearly every city council in the state opposed it. So did The Seattle Times, calling it "an expensive hoax on property owners and taxpayers." Mercifully, voters defeated it by about 60-40 percent across the state (and about 67-33 percent in King County.)

It's no coincidence that I-933 was funded by groups now dumping buckets of money into Rossi's campaign, including the BIAW. According to your Oct. 17 story, BIAW PACs [political-action committees] are spending upward of $6 million to elect Rossi and others who would ax environmental protection measures

Let's keep Washington green with Gov. Gregoire.

-- Elsa Bruton, Olympia

You still at work?
When I read The Times' endorsement for gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor, I hoped I would find cogent and convincing reasons to vote for him. Instead, I found myself reading the same stuff that the Rossi campaign has been putting out all year.

What happened?

Did the editorial staff take the day off and have Rossi write his own endorsement?

-- Mark Hudson, Seattle

You fell for it
I am writing to express my disappointment with The Times' endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor. While you are certainly free to support any candidate of your choice, your failure to fully represent Rossi's views in your endorsement do a disservice to your readers and to the citizens of our state.

Your editorial focused entirely on Rossi's proposed economic agenda, and neglected to address his regressive social positions. While I agree that the state's economic woes are of high importance, our next governor will also set the tone for a social agenda of equal magnitude.

Rossi's arch-conservative views include: siding with big business at the expense of our environment, decreasing protections for wildlife and wilderness areas, seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade and restricting access to contraception and medically accurate sex-education information in schools.

He promises to veto marriage-equality legislation should the Legislature approve it, and to roll back the hard-won civil-union rights that gay and lesbian citizens have just recently attained.

The Rossi campaign has cleverly managed to divert attention during election season from his social views.
By ignoring these issues in your endorsement of his candidacy, you've allowed this dishonest campaign strategy to achieve its purpose.

-- Jeff Natter, Seattle

He will take us down
I am a teacher in the Seattle Public Schools. I've taught for 30 years. I am writing to spread the word about gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi. He will take us back to the days when he was in control of the budget and cut the education budget by $1.2 billion. His current campaign calls for huge increases in the transportation budget with no new sources of revenue.

That means he would cut education again.

This state cannot afford to have a governor who sacrifices our children's futures. We need an educated work force to meet the needs of the state's future work force. Washington cannot afford Rossi.

-- Joanie Mass, Seattle

We're on a road to nowhere
I was quite dismayed to see that your editorial board has endorsed gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, as he simply is not qualified. People who vote for him will be voting against their own interests and will be backing big business. Didn't we have enough of that trickle-down theory on the national level these past eight years? We do not need that here in Washington state.

The basis of your endorsement is that he will deal with our state deficit without raising taxes. That is a Republican manner of looking at a financial situation. Look where that has gotten our country.

Taxes not raised on a state level are simply made up by increased homeowner and sales taxes elsewhere. Thinking we do not all need to pay for our fair share of the infrastructures and services is silly.

No matter how "likable" Rossi appears to be, he's a lacky of big business and I for one have had more than enough of that these last eight years.

-- Matt Shaw, Seattle

Let her keep tackling
As Island County Commissioner, I often worked with Gov. Christine Gregoire when she was director of the state Department of Ecology. She did not hesitate to take on the toughest problems facing people of this good state.

Two of the more contentious were water and water rights and Puget Sound water quality. She brought all the players and interested parties together and got them to talk and consider solutions until an agreement could be made. Feelings often overflowed into the discussions but she never wavered in her determination to find an equitable solution. Her leadership and sharp intellect served us all well.

These qualities were shown again when, as our attorney general, she successfully concluded negotiations with the tobacco industry that netted billions from the U.S. I recall saying to the executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties that I thought she was doing a really good job. He countered that "She is the best attorney general we have ever had." And I, too, came to believe that to be true.

As governor she has brought that same leadership and incisive thinking to the highest office in our state. She has tackled the tough jobs and served the people well. I will be proud to vote for her to be returned for a second term.

-- Dwain Colby, Camano Island

No more equal rights

I was crushed, but not surprised, that Dino Rossi won the endorsement of The Seattle Times. I am willing to concede that he could do a good job with the budget, though Gov. Christine Gregoire has proved that she can be tough as well.

I recall it was under her watch that a large deficit was erased. But socially, Rossi does not represent the majority of this state. He has said that he would consider proactively rescinding the domestic-partnership law. He even refused to address the constituency at a gay and lesbian community business meeting.

If he didn't support equal rights based on race or gender I suspect that The Seattle Times would write him off in a nanosecond, regardless of his other positions. It just proves that gay and lesbian people can still be publicly maligned without penalty. The support of the editorial board of Rossi without qualification makes them complicit with Rossi's views.

The editorial mentioned other reasons to vote for Rossi besides the budget issues, but the idea was basically change for change's sake.

I hardly think that changing from Gregoire is analogous to the change from President George W. Bush. I think there are many other reasons to vote for Gregoire, such as education, industry support, minimum wage and the environment.

But The Seattle Times is completely myopic in their approach. Perhaps the editorial should have mentioned some concerns as well.

-- John Sutherland, Seattle

She's doing it better
In your endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, you claim that "when he says he'll cut spending, you can believe him." I strongly disagree.

I find it hard to believe anything Rossi has said in this campaign. He hasn't provided one substantive proposal to tackle any of the state's problems, and when it comes to cutting spending, Rossi refuses to pinpoint a single item he would cut. He just says, "I'll balance the budget without raising taxes."

That's an attractive promise to make, but no one should believe him until he explains exactly how he would do it.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has already started to cut spending and has also vowed not to raise taxes.
To save $90 million, Gregoire has ordered state agencies to implement a hiring freeze and to eliminate nonemergency out-of-state travel, equipment purchases and services contracts. In addition, she just announced another $240 million in immediate budget savings.

Combined with the money saved in the rainy-day fund Gregoire created, these actions alone will cut the projected budget deficit in half.

When it comes to balancing the budget, Gregoire is the only candidate we should trust.

-- Alex Hart, Seattle

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

Eco-fur is still fur
As an expatriate New Zealander and a person committed to promoting the rights and welfare of all human and nonhuman animals, I am appalled that possums are being cruelly killed in New Zealand for "eco-fur" ["This is not Granny's possum," Living, Sept. 29].

Humans introduced possums to New Zealand and we have a responsibility to solve conflicts with them humanely.

And don't forget that fur products are loaded with chemicals to keep them from decomposing in the buyer's closet -- hardly environmentally friendly. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the chemicals used in dying furs, hexavalent chromium, is a hazardous waste.
But the main problem with "eco-fur" is that it's still fur.

-- Margaret Parkinson, Seattle

Stick to changing light bulbs
Readers who want to help the environment should stick to changing their light bulbs and using cloth tote bags. Killing small animals and turning them into tacky throw pillows and bedspreads is not eco-friendly.
Before furs reach the local fur salon they are soaked in a bath of chemicals, then bleached, dyed or toned. The laundry list of chemicals used during the dressing process includes sulfuric acid, ammonium chloride, formaldehyde, lead acetate, sodium perborate and more.

And don't forget that the majority of animals killed for fur today are raised on fur farms, which produce tens of thousands of tons of waste every year, including manure, shavings, straw and animal corpses. Many of the carcasses from fur farms end up rotting in landfills.

Claiming that fur is anything other than a product of cruelty is green-washing of the worst kind.

-- Paula Moore, Norfolk

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