Sup­port, and a Key Fuel, for Fight­ing Global Warm­ing

The Washington Post Sunday - - Letters To The Editor -

Are­cent poll by The Post, ABC News and Stan­ford Univer­sity cor­rectly found that Amer­i­cans see global warm­ing as a lead­ing threat [news story, April 20].

How­ever, the Cen­ter for Amer­i­can Progress’s re­cent poll con­tra­dicts The Post’s re­port­ing that there is “lit­tle pub­lic agree­ment” about so­lu­tions. In fact, our poll found that two-thirds of the pub­lic sup­port an in­crease in gas mileage stan­dards and the re­quire­ment that one-quar­ter of elec­tric­ity come from wind, so­lar and other clean al­ter­na­tives. Nearly 60 per­cent also fa­vor cap­ping and then re­duc­ing global warm­ing pol­lu­tion.

This pub­lic sup­port should pro­vide the im­pe­tus for pub­lic of­fi­cials to adopt th­ese poli­cies to slow global warm­ing.

DANIEL J. WEISS Se­nior Fel­low and Di­rec­tor of Cli­mate Strat­egy

Cen­ter for Amer­i­can Progress

Wash­ing­ton

The is­sues sur­round­ing global cli­mate change poli­cies are se­ri­ous and re­quire im­me­di­ate ac­tion, but an im­proper or hasty res­o­lu­tion of this de­bate could have ex­treme im­pli­ca­tions for Amer­ica’s oil and nat­u­ral gas pro­duc­ers and for the en­tire na­tion.

With­out judg­ing whether the sci­en­tific is­sues sur­round­ing global cli­mate are set­tled, any cli­mate change pol­icy must in­clude all ma­jor coun­tries that emit green­house gases, and it must rec­og­nize clean-burn­ing nat­u­ral gas as a crit­i­cal tool for re­duc­ing emis­sions.

Cli­mate change pro­pos­als in­evitably com­pel greater de­mand for nat­u­ral gas. No cli­mate change approach should be adopted un­less it in­cludes mech­a­nisms to en­sure ac­cess to Amer­i­can nat­u­ral gas. Nat­u­ral gas has been the fuel of choice for new elec­tric­ity gen­er­a­tion. It is es­sen­tial for the pro­duc­tion of bio­fu­els, both as a fuel and a com­po­nent of fer­til­iz­ers. It is the feed­stock or the process heat­ing source for the man­u­fac­ture of en­ergy con­ser­va­tion ma­te­ri­als, en­ergy-ef­fi­cient prod­ucts and al­ter­na­tive en­ergy tech­nolo­gies.

Con­se­quently, no global cli­mate pro­gram should re­sult in dis­in­cen­tives — or worse, con­straints — on Amer­i­can oil and nat­u­ral gas pro­duc­tion that would have the ef­fect of in­creas­ing our de­pen­dence on for­eign sources of en­ergy.

BARRY RUS­SELL

Pres­i­dent In­de­pen­dent Pe­tro­leum As­so­ci­a­tion of Amer­ica

Wash­ing­ton

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.