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But I remain highly skeptical about this outcome if the media remains steeped in outdated and harmful modes of thinking.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

Acting like an ostrich is not a productive option

Editor, The Times:

The problem with being an ostrich is that while your head may be nice and warm down in the sand, your posterior is dangerously exposed.

In her Aug. 7 guest commentary ["Cap-and-trade takes too much out of working families' pockets," Opinion], state Rep. Shelly Short rails against the federal clean-energy policy being negotiated in Congress, but ignores the reasons President Obama has made energy policy one of his top three priorities: continued dependence on fossil fuels and the profound impacts of climate change are a recipe for disaster for this nation, our economy and our children's future.

Sure, if there weren't any threats out there, I too would prefer to keep my head in the warm sand of doing what I've always done. But I don't think responsible people can do that to future generations, let alone our own pocketbooks.

It's time for a national climate and clean energy policy that increases jobs, reduces pollution and gives us more control over our own future. I for one am grateful that Gov. Chris Gregoire, President Obama and congressional leaders are working to address this crisis head on.

-- Pam Lewis, 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

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

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

Reichert's cap-and-trade vote a disservice to constituents

A district-by-district impact study by the Heritage Foundation found Washington's 8th Congressional District will lose 4,756 nonfarm jobs in 2012 as a result of the cap-and-trade legislation Rep. Dave Reichert voted for recently ["Members of Washington's congressional delegation explain their cap-and-trade votes," seattletimes.com, Politics Northwest, June 26]. My job will likely be one of them.

In fact, our district is highly dependent on the airline industry; not only is it home for many airline pilots like myself, whether employed by locally based Alaska Airlines or other major airlines, but for thousands of workers employed at Boeing and related aerospace companies. Airlines' answer to higher jet-fuel prices is reducing capacity and parking airplanes, which directly impacts employment and eliminates the need to purchase new aircraft from Boeing.

Market-based mechanisms have already sent a signal to the industry to develop means to reduce fossil-fuel consumption as profits have been eaten by the cost of energy. Congress should not place additional burdens on an industry that will serve only to further reduce innovation and hemorrhage jobs while merely shifting carbon emissions -- and wealth -- to the other side of the globe.

Does Reichert recognize the catastrophic impacts of the bill he supported? Not only will local jobs be eliminated, but manufacturing jobs across our nation will be exported to foreign countries like China where cap-and-trade barriers do not exist. Even 44 democrats crossed the aisle to vote against this dangerous and destructive piece of legislation. Why didn't Reichert?

-- J. Zach Oldham, Bellevue

There is no dollar value on environmental damage

George F. Will presents a case against solar and wind power ["Save the planet, lose some jobs," Opinion, syndicated columnist, June 26] as being economically subpar. He says "environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation."

I will go along with him on this point, with some reservations. It is most likely true that energy development that takes into account the embedding of the economic system in the ecologic system will be less efficient than calculations that ignore this embedding.

However, the consequences of ignoring it can be serious. Coal might be more efficient in a totally economic argument, but if we include global warming in the argument, we have to add costs of carbon capture and storage, an unproven technique. In addition, how do we put a dollars-and-cents value on the environmental damage of strip mining the coal?

Calculating costs in a broader sense than conventional macroeconomics is even more vital in the case of oil. I will submit that the costs of two wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- plus all the previous conflict in the Persian Gulf, including the Gulf War of 1991, must be added.

Environmentalists, it is true, do tend to shrug off the economic implications of the policies they advocate and must become more rigorous in that regard.

-- Peter Van Zant, Seattle

Let's change the market to support green policies, not oil

George F. Will's recent syndicated column arguing against renewable and sustainable energy makes important logical assumptions that are false. He says these forms of generation are "politically driven investments [that] are economically counterproductive" because they "subordinate market rationality" to environmental values.

But all economic decisions are value based, and market rationality reflects these unarticulated premises. For example, current policy is designed to favor coal and oil producers, and the market includes lavish subsidies and tax breaks. Abstract market rationality would support the legalized buying and selling of heroin at the mall, but some social values have distorted what would otherwise be a bustling commerce.

Economics can just as readily support the long-term values of community sustainability as those of short-term private rapaciousness. Will knows this, but dissembles in his writings. And, thankfully, the House of Representatives passed the new energy policies in the climate-control bill later that same day.

-- Phil Bereano, Seattle

No need for tax within cap-and-trade

If carbon emissions are harmful to the Earth, shouldn't we just cap and then reduce these emissions?

What is this cap, trade and tax Americans all about? The cap is OK, the trade part is insanity -- especially if carbon emissions are harmful -- and the taxes created by HB 2454 are unnecessary. These taxes will cause every American to move toward poverty.

This poor legislation will cause huge job losses, higher energy costs for everyone in the United States and give the incentives for productivity to Asian countries smart enough to understand that low-cost energy is smart business.

With global cooling betraying the foundations of the cap-and-trade concepts, the Democratic Party, lead by the Obama administration, are rushing to tax all Americans for everything short of breathing.

Today scientific proof is revealing that the global-warming scare is little more than data misused to point out nonproblems with the Earth's future. We might as well rely on Tarot readers for data.

-- Jim Henderson, Walla Walla

'Cap and trade' has hidden costs

The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis ["CBO: Climate bill costs to be modest," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, June 22] of the Waxman-Markey climate legislation ("cap and trade") that could be passed. The CBO has reported that it will cost the average family $80 to $110 per year, but its report is glossing over some important details.

Footnote three on page four reads, "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor."

I believe this is a pretty important item that should be considered. How about page five, "The distribution of the gross cost of complying with the policy would be quite different if the price level did not increase as a result of the cap -- if the Federal Reserve adjusted monetary policy to prevent such an increase. In that case, the compliance costs would fall on workers and investors in the form of lower wages and profits."

I have yet to hear exactly what percentage of CO2 emissions these drastic measures will cut, but I have heard only a few hundredths of a percentage point. Yes, just hundredths.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Bill will protect environment, ourselves

As reported by The Times ["New U.S. climate report dire, but offers hope," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, June 16], the federal government has published a new report indicating that climate change is already affecting our region, causing increased flooding and wildfires. Unless we take action now, a significant number of plants and wildlife will go extinct in this century as climate change makes their current home range inhospitable.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 now being debated in Congress would put a cap on greenhouse gases to slow our planet's warming. It would also safeguard the air, water and lands that we and wildlife depend on for survival, in part by providing funding for the National Park Service and other agencies to research and help plants and animals adjust to these changes.

An upcoming report by the National Parks Conservation Association spells out just how we can help wildlife cope with climate change. We can protect critical habitat in and adjacent to national parks by developing corridors to allow wildlife access to new habitats as their current ranges become unsuitable and by reducing additional stresses from pollution, invasive plants and disease.

This will also help our economy: Outdoor activities that rely on healthy wildlife and ecosystems contribute $730 billion to the U.S. economy.

We're looking to Congress to pass climate legislation that protects our public lands, waters, wildlife and, ultimately, ourselves.

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

Cost of bill too much to bear

I urge our representatives not to vote in favor of this abominable "cap and trade" bill before Congress. This bill represents a huge and highly regressive tax burden on the ordinary people of Washington state that will do nothing to improve our lives or our environment but will only serve to greatly enrich those able to put themselves in the middle of the "cap and trade" transactions.

This sort of huge new cost with no discernible benefit is exactly what people do not need as our economy is recovering from a credit-market meltdown and a recession while teetering on the edge of descending even further into shrinking economic activity and hyperinflation from a federal deficit that has quadrupled in just the first four months of this new administration. Our representatives should just vote no.

-- John J. Sullivan, Seattle

Imperfect bill a perfect starting point

From their speeches, you would think that reducing fossil-fuel dependence is a top priority for America's elected leaders. However, we're more dependent on fossil fuels than ever, and we're paying too high a price for that dependence. Our leaders in the other Washington have yet to seriously deliver on the promise of a clean-energy economy.

Now, they have a chance to support a real change.

The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act would invest in effective clean-energy solutions -- energy efficiency and renewable resources that reduce cost and pollution. It would minimize our fossil-fuel dependence and position America to reap the benefits of clean energy -- green jobs, healthier communities and a stronger economy.

Like any Congressional compromise, ACES isn't perfect. But legislation is a process, and the journey to real climate and energy solutions will take more than one step. ACES will launch us on the right path.

Congressman Dave Reichert, R-8th District, has been open to sound policies that align economic and environmental goals, even when he has to buck his party. However, this is much bigger than party politics. It's time to do what's right and necessary and vote for ACES.

-- Andrei G. Guschin, Redmond

Sadly, many still deny that the Earth is getting warmer

Despite the overwhelming evidence from astronomy, geology and physics that the Earth is round and orbits the sun, there are still those who believe we live on a flat world that is at the center of the universe.

Even though there were thousands of NASA employees and space-program scientists (not to mention the astronauts themselves) who took part in the Apollo missions, there are still those who believe the moon landings were faked.

And despite the convincing and widely-accepted data that support the reality of global warming, there are still those people like Pam Schmoll of Bellevue who make think global warming doesn't exist ["Don't trust federal scientists," Northwest Voices, June 21].

Schmoll and others who share her views are wrong; despite her haranguing about federal scientists espousing nonscience evidence, the scientific community is in resounding agreement about the existence of global warming, and this concurrence is readily reflected in article after article from scientific literature.

One can only conclude that Schmoll is stunningly uninformed about what the scientific community actually says about the issue of climate change.

There is a depressingly sizable segment of the American-political spectrum that tends to dismiss that which is supported by convincing scientific evidence and at the same time embraces beliefs that have little or no credible basis.

These people espouse a drearily predictable theme: If the federal government says it, then it's wrong. Talk about tainted beliefs!

-- Russell L. Higgins, Monroe

Don't trust federal scientists' global-warming conclusions

The photo that accompanies the article, "Scientists: Global warming is real, and it is only getting worse," shows Michelle Obama holding a head of lettuce [seattletimes.com, Travel/Outdoors, June 17]. Global warming is not proven, and I don't want my tax money supporting legislation based on the "federal" scientists saying anything.

What in the world is a federal scientist? I prefer plain old scientist.

No politics, no alliances, no biases -- no federal. Who is handling the hiring? Who is paying a federal scientist? Why should we care?

Science is analytical and looks at theories. It tests hypotheses. We need policy based on evidence that is not tainted by nonscience.

Let's mix it up with all the academics and start avoiding the meddling Obamas.

-- Pam Schmoll, Bellevue

New bill finally addresses global-warming threat

The Obama administration has just released a groundbreaking, government-science report titled "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." The report's conclusions are clear.

Global warming is already affecting our nation, and we must take decisive action to address it. Among the impacts: extreme heat waves, floods, devastating hurricanes, the spread of disease, water shortages, threats to the nation's cities, highways, ports and food production and disruptions to U.S. energy supply. In short, failure to address climate change has the potential to cause a catastrophic economic burden.

As early as next week, the U.S. House may vote on historic legislation that will address global warming. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will reduce greenhouse gases, make polluters pay for the costs of dumping carbon pollution into the air, create a new clean-energy industry and the businesses and jobs to support it and safeguard the natural resources upon which life depends.

Our representatives should vote for this bill when it comes to the floor of the House.

-- Paulette Doulatshahi, Mercer Island

Wake up: Global warming is real

The just-released White House report on climate-change impacts is a wake-up call for us to move swiftly to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

As an angler, this report is particularly troubling given the projected impacts of climate change to salmon and steelhead. The report projects that if climate change continues unabated, flooding in the spring and summer droughts will continue to increase, impacting salmon populations and forest health. Congress must act now to address the impacts of a rapidly changing climate.

Congressman Dave Reichert, R-8th District, will have a chance to provide needed leadership in the coming week, when the House votes on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Not only will this bill cap harmful greenhouse-gas emissions and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, but it uses a portion of money generated by the sale of emissions permits to invest in our natural resources to safeguard wildlife from the effects of global warming.

Regardless of climate change, we are exporting our economy wholesale to the Middle East, and multinational oil companies.

Congressman Reichert needs to support clean energy. It means protecting our hunting and fishing traditions for our children and grand children.

-- Mark Heckert, Puyallup