EVOLVING CONCERNS

Readers trade assessments of revisions to federal energy and environment policies

Let free market boost green energy growth

TWO ENVIRONMENTAL/ECONOMIC items in recent news pointing in opposite directions together might actually open the way for a new way forward. First, the president issued an executive order rolling back policies enacted to curb greenhouse gas emissions. (Journal, March 29)

The other item, on the front page of the Journal’s Business section (March 28), was that solar jobs in New Mexico are increasing dramatically. They were up 54 percent last year (as of December) to a total of 2,929 jobs, making our state the eighth-highest in solar jobs per capita in the nation. With our bleak unemployment figures, we really need more of this kind of job growth! Nationally there was also a large jump in solar industry jobs and sales.

The Trump administration opposes regulation and coercion of the market for the purpose of curbing greenhouse gases. But the already rapid growth in renewable energy is such that, with the right economic framework, greenhouse gases might decline simply due to the tide of change away from fossil fuels and toward green energy, in the process growing our economy and creating jobs faster than continued reliance on carbon-based fuels would do.

Carbon fee and dividend legislation is the best way to accelerate the process of growing jobs and reducing greenhouse gases without regulations or manipulation of the energy industry. This approach is finding support across the political spectrum. For example, a distinguished group of conservative thinkers and leaders, members of The Climate Leadership Council, recently issued what they call “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.”

The authors include such respected figures as George Shultz and James Baker, each of whom served as secretary of state and of the treasury, Henry Paulson, also a former treasury secretary, and Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, among others.

Carbon fee and dividend would place a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels at their source, i.e. the well, mine or border, and return that fee as a dividend to all households. The market would then determine which green energy technology succeeds, and households would benefit from dividends to help pay for transitioning to cheaper and better energy sources. “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” argues that a carbon dividends plan would strengthen the economy, benefit working-class Americans, reduce regulations, and protect our national heritage — all while addressing climate change.

Strengthening our economy is a top priority for us here in New Mexico. Just imagine how our employment could grow if we were to fully capitalize on our natural advantages for green energy in the form of our abundant sunshine, wind and geothermal energy! HEIDI TOPP BROOKS Albuquerque

Methane rule should be applied intelligently

CHRISTINA ARNOLD’S op ed, “BLM has no authority to issue methane rule,” March 20) was well-focused and wellwritten. However, it contains an analysis that needs further comment.

Arnold asserts that if the Bureau of Land Management is given authority (to) prevent methane flares on BLM land in New Mexico, the resulting compliance costs will force many small operators to abandon tens of thousands of marginally profitable wells. The result would be less natural gas production in New Mexico and less tax revenue for the state, Arnold claims.

The Journal has already weighed in (on) this issue, arguing reasonably in an editorial that the BLM’s proposed rules can be modified and applied in ways that give small producers ample time to comply.

Another way to give most smaller producers some leeway would be to thoughtfully apply the “5/50” rule, which states that 50 percent of methane emissions typically come from 5 percent of emitters. The 5/50 rule, which has been verified by researchers at Stanford University, would probably cause investigators and regulators to focus first on collection and processing facilities, because those are places where the biggest volumes of natural gas are flowing. From there, the focus would move gradually upstream.

If the 5/50 theory holds true in the San Juan region, a small percentage of its many players will end up having big problems. But a much larger percentage won’t, and concerns about small businesses will have been addressed.

Even more importantly, there will be a lot less methane, a potent green gas, leaking into the air. RORY HOLSCHER Corrales

Op-ed neglected important Trump actions

RE: MICHA Gisser’s op-ed I noticed Dr. Gisser didn’t mention the dismantling of the EPA or (Trump’s) Supreme Court nominee or attorney general appointment. I suppose in the latter two cases he might reply that he is an economist and they are not within his purview, although as a graduate student I used to have the tiny office next to him and recall his mentioning to me he was a “social liberal.” But his disregard of the dismantling of the EPA is, at least in my opinion, neglect. And, again in my opinion considering the environmental problems we are facing, far from benign neglect. PETER LAWTON Albuquerque

We’re far from understanding climate change

OK, HERE we go. The next “Trump Travesty” has arrived. He is rolling back Obama EPA policy and he is doing it quickly. He said he would and he is. This means the environment enthusiasts will be out by the dozens and reported in the thousands. When one has environment on the brain, everything looks like a coal mine. Zealots are defined by their lack of balance and forfeiture of common sense.

Does man affect the environment? Absolutely. Does the climate change? Absolutely. Do we have an entire industry built around associating man’s evil presence on this planet with climate change? Absolutely. Should we protect our planet? Absolutely. Should we continue to try to understand our climate — particularly the cycles of the big yellow hot spot in the sky? Absolutely.

Do we have any credible evidence that clearly ties man’s activity to climate change? No, not really. We have data collected over a speck in the timeline of the planet — a good portion of which has been modified to political ends. Do we understand climate cycles that span thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of years? Absolutely not. Can I do the backstroke to San Diego as predicted by Al Gore by now? Don’t think so. TOM CHILDRESS Albuquerque

Water infrastructure bill deserves support

IT IS EXTREMELY alarming to learn from your article “Water loan, grant program facing elimination,” (March 25, 2017) that rural community water systems like the Entranosa Water Cooperative may soon lose federal support because of the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts. Eliminating USDA’s rural water program and enacting stringent cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency will make funds for rural communities exceedingly scarce.

Fortunately, Congressman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., has just reintroduced the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act. This legislation would provide nearly $35 billion annually to modernize U.S. water infrastructure.

The WATER Act funds infrastructure projects by closing a loophole on offshore corporate profits. It would greatly expand funding available for states, while increasing funding for small-system technical assistance and grants to communities with affordability challenges. It would help water cooperatives like Entranosa and cities like Flint, Mich., where lead has made the water undrinkable.

We’re the richest country in the world and we should be able to deliver clean affordable water service to all of our residents. The bill already has the support of (New Mexico Democratic) Reps. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Ben Ray Luján. Let’s get all our N.M. representatives on board to support this important legislation. ELEANOR BRAVO Albuquerque

Attack on air quality threatens our health

AMERICAN FAMILIES, perhaps even families internationally, have cause for concern. (On March 28) President Trump signed energy executive orders to protect polluters — corporations that dump waste into the air cheaply to protect their bottom line — at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, an unprecedented attack on clean air safeguards. Our children will bear the costs. Our families will bear the costs. Our communities will bear the costs.

Never has a president of the United States, nor an EPA head, acted with such reckless disregard for our health — or our safety — in the face of the clear and present, unpredictable and destructive effects of climate change.

By making official his administration’s plan to begin the process of dismantling America’s Clean Power Plan, a plan that protects all families in America by curbing carbon pollution and reducing admissions of other toxic pollutants from power plants, our president is taking aim at every American’s health, our well-being.

What’s more, the president is also undermining the most significant step that our country has ever taken to address climate change. Air pollution daily impacts our lives — it is associated with asthma, lung cancer and many other illnesses — and dismantling the Clean Power Plan harms us all.

As a mother of two, a high school teacher and an active community member in Santa Fe, I say: not on my watch. As parents, as educators, as New Mexicans, we have an obligation to fight against air pollution that imperils our children’s health, our own health, that of generations to come and that makes climate change worse. JANINE JOHNSTON Santa Fe