Ideas and solutions
California requires its power providers to diversify their non-carbon-based generation methods, and solar, wind, nuclear and hydro are the options. Given the tragic situation in Japan, the safety measures associated with nuclear power generation will certainly be reviewed. A reasonable person would argue there is a cost to be paid for our reliance on electricity.
So, imagine my humor when I read of the gentleman who protested against Diablo Canyon in the ’80s and is now opposed to the solar project on the Carrizo Plain. If you oppose the solar project, you will certainly fight wind power (as birds occasionally are killed by the blades of the wind towers) as well as wave energy generation (because it may impact marine life). So, as you pick up your cell phone (electricity) to call your friends; before you toss your laptop (electricity) into your hybrid (electricity and fossil fuel) to drive to the local coffee house for your favorite cappuccino (electricity), be willing to pay the cost for what you rely on.
I mourn for those in Japan who have lost much, and I am grateful to live in a country where we can have healthy debate and share ideas and solutions.
People are polluters
I read with both dismay and appreciation Richard Hawley’s plea (Letters, April 1) for clean air and water.
Dismay, because Mr. Hawley seems to think the polluters are not the people: “Will Congress stand with polluters or the people?” The people are the polluters. Privately, people are quite fond of pollution.
They like having the “freedom” to personally pollute the air and water with some very serious pollutants. Publicly, they engage in a rather transparent song-and-dance accompanied by vigorous gnashing of teeth about “corporate” pollution.
It puts the blame somewhere else, while eliminating the necessity to alter “path dependence.”
Path dependence, according to David Brooks (Commentary, March 31) is ongoing dysfunctional behavior “that began with a choice that made sense at a particular time in the past, but survived despite the eclipse of the justification for that choice.”
M. Power Giacoletti
I question loyalty to corporate giants as expressed in the article titled, “The real issue.”
As a resident of Atascadero and Walmart opponent, I attended the council meetings concerning the original Walmart application for a superstore. It was obvious those on the Walmart side were well-funded and well-fed (free hot dogs and bumper stickers). To credit Walmart with the best interest of anyone (excluding the personhood of Walmart) is to discount its massive war chest to get what it wants.
All the praise of Walmart’s neighborliness overlooks the power of the purse; to laud their beneficence speaks mainly to their public relations department’s well funded ability to buy exactly what they want, including loyalty. Stop drinking the Walmart Kool-Aid, Atascadero.