Letters: Time for climate action


Return To Article
  • Jl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    one vote, where do you live? I'm moving to your neighborhood.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Electric only vehicles after three days of inversion by 2020.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 11:35 p.m.

    the truth
    Holladay, UT
    It was a colder winter over 60 years ago.

    What is left's, the climate changing chicken littles, explanation for that?


    Ummm, It's called Global Warming.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    It was a colder winter over 60 years ago.

    What is left's, the climate changing chicken littles, explanation for that?

    The climate now is NOT hotter or colder than is been in the past, what is the extreme left's explanation for that?

    Man-made climate is definitively proven a hoax.

    And is nothing but a tool for a progressive power grab and money grab.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    "Sorry, I just do not believe we have the power to control the climate, fossil fuels and junk science computer models not withstanding!"

    We have the power to create the ozone hole problem. I don't see why this is really any different since they're both a matter of atmospheric chemistry.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    It's too late. You wasted all this time arguing the if's and what if's and by the time it hits you in the face you will be hit in the pocketbook inspite of yourself because you want to be right. Instead of being reasonable and making the planet a better place you have squandered the opportunity to be responsible. What's wrong with pure water and clean air I say? It might cost us money,you say. It's too late.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    There are 2 time honored theories about the 'disastrous weather we have been experiencing these last many years.

    Darwinism - the earth has gone through many climate changes through its history, and those creatures that adapt, survive.

    Religion-ism - the world is iniquitous and the people are being warned by their God to straighten up or face destruction.

    Then there is the new theory

    Secularism - We are the Gods of this world and we can fix the climate how we want it, if you will just fork over all your money and give up your life.

    Let's go with the time honored approaches over this new one. It sounds too kooky.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    It is much easier to bury head in sand and hope the 1950's return. Let the grandkids take care of the problems.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    **'EPA inventory shows Utah's sources of greenhouse gas' - By Amy Joi O'Donoghue - 02/05/13 - Published by the Deseret News

    'WASHINGTON — The nation's power plants continue to be the single largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to new information released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency.'

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    @ Marxist. I am honestly trying my best to understand this issue. You and others are telling us that if it is colder than normal it is because it was warmer than normal and if it is warmer than normal it is because it was colder than normal? What is should the "normal" temperature be? Sorry, I just do not believe we have the power to control the climate, fossil fuels and junk science computer models not withstanding! The sun has the most impact on our climate and not even Al Gore can control that as he laughs all the way to his huge bank account he has personally profited from this issue! Why he is now richer than Mitt Romney and you know how much you hate him!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    Re: Mountanman "Today's Headline: "Storm pumping up Utah's snowpack, January coldest month since 1949." This headline: "Time for climate change action". So, which is it? Contradictions anyone? " Of course you must know that as the global mean temperature climbs this will lead to more violent swings in weather behavior, and more violent storms.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    I'm beggining to see a clear pattern on dealing with all the problems we have in the world today.

    Gun problems,
    Fiscal problems,
    Global warming problem,
    Healthcare problems,
    Homeless problems,
    UnEmployment problem,
    Economic problems,
    etc., etc., etc.

    We have one group of people trying to study things out,
    come up with an idea to solve them,
    and try to actually DO something about them.

    And then we have the other group -
    Who say NO to everything, and want to do NOTHING about any of it.

    There's a reason why they have the reputation of being the party of NO.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    What climate change are you talking about? Temperatures are in the normal range. Precipitation is within the normal range.

    What climate change? Please answer that before pretending politicians can do anything about it.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    As for media it is a reinforcer of what people choose to beleive rather than an enforcer. A conservative is more likely to listen to Fox news and Rush and Sean wheras a liberal is more likely to listen to NPR and MSNBC. They listen to people not to be informed but to be reinforced. Those that listen to something they don't agree with do to discuss why they are wrong not to be informed.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    The problem with both sides of the climate change argument is that they ignore the more fundamental issue, namely, the assumption that endless economic growth is the answer to all our problems. Both sides keep wanting to feed the beast as much as possible. One side wants to feed it carbon-based fuels. The other side wants to feed it wind, hydro, solar, and other so-called green fuels. But if we keep feeding the beast, it will soon devour us. What happened in 2008 was just the tip of the iceberg.

    What we need to do is rethink completely our basic economic assumptions, beginning with the question, "What is the purpose of an economic system?" Let me give you a clue. The answer is not to simply convert as many resources as possible into consumable products and then, by consuming them, convert them into waste. This is madness on a grand scale. Do we really think we can forever perpetuate the corporate system we have been addicted to since the 1860s?

    Why are we always asking the wrong questions?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Why is it man made global warming advocates shoot thier own arguments out of the discussion. The letter writter says this is the worst drought in 50 years. We have to make drastic cuts. The writter refers to the five year drought of 1988. But what man made event resulted in the 1933 drought or the 1988 drought. Droughts have occured for centuries. Remember the reason the Israelits ended up in Eygpt, was a seven year drought that affected the entire region. Drought struck the American Southwest back in the 13th century, drought in the lower and central Mississippi River basin between the 14th and 16th century, droughts in Iowa in 1721, 1736, and from 1771 to 1773, there were at least three major droughts in nineteenth century North America. What about all those across Europe and Africa. Man made or created, hardly. Now on to a real discussion of real causes. Read the IPPC 2014 leaked report. Co2 not as big as they thought.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 10, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    "LDStreehugger what makes people you beleive more right than people conservatives beleive. Even among scientists there is not unanimous consent."

    Because he is believing what the vast vast majority of what climate scientists say.

    And there will virtually never be "unanimous consent" among scientists on any issue.

    Heck, maybe the world is still flat.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    What to do? We might start by building nuclear power plants to replace those "nasty" CO2 generators. We might plant more to use the excess CO2 and convert it to that Oxygen all animal life needs. We could petition Mother Nature to restrict volcanoes and other disasters which contribute to warming. Like the pumps purchased to pump the Great Salt Lake into the western desert, we can purchase a lot of huge fans to blow all the stainted air our of the Wasatch Front.

    The last things we should consider is the removal of employment opportunities and the taxing of everyone in pursuit of un-attainable results. We must "adapt"

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    The trouble with the tree-huggers is that their leaders are backing off.
    Just last week one guru was upset because they were planning a wind farm in his town. He explained that wind energy was so much hot air.
    And the developer of the Pruis says their's no future in the electric car.
    Then we can talk about how bio-fuels leave a huge footprint to process AND raise the price of food.
    And for all the global warming talk no one has been able to explain how fossil fuels are bending the jet stream.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    This reminds me of a controversy raging when I was studying geology in college in the early 1960's. The debate then was over "continental drift."

    How did that turn out?

    Continental drift is now a proven fact.

    But its consequences didn't mean much for the humans who depend upon this planet as their spaceship. IF climate changes is proven in the future as was continental drift, and nothing at all has been done to try to control it, what will be the consequences to human life on earth?

    Is this something we can simply dismiss -- or does it deserve careful investigation and solutions? All of humanity may depend upon how effectively we respond.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    LDStreehugger what makes people you beleive more right than people conservatives beleive. Even among scientists there is not unanimous consent.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    We can't control the climate why let it control us. Just a move to give people empowerment and hurt prosperity that makes our lives more comfortable. Why bite the hand that feeds us. We eat and use products thatsome people say people make climate dangerous production. Why work there and use them than? Storm in Northeast and cold spells in this hemisphere. We have zero control over climate.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    @ LDS Tree hugger. It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others inundate us regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take fierce anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible futility of it all — or the cost.
    Those costs will get us if we do fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale economist. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion.
    Nordhaus believes if India and China do not join the parade, nothing is accomplished by any American program, and the Chinese have not been spotted signing up. Some climatologists say the trends are mild.
    One of them is Patrick Michaels who was at the University of Virginia for 30 years. His study convinces him nothing disastrous lies around yonder bend. Another is Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He believes gloomy computer simulations are bogus.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Although I sincerely applaud this letter writer --

    Tha sad fact of the matter is most Utahns will still take the word of 3 or 4 AM radio college drop outs, stting in a studio, and with know severe political bias...
    [saying that global warming is a hoax, isn't happening at all, and that Al Gore Inc. is the root cause of the rumor].
    100% of the World's entire Scientific and University communities acknowledge Global warming.
    [99% agreeing it is man-made, with a few dis-agreeing].

    Something has to be done.

    Ignore the radio,
    and Stop ignoring reality, the earth, and the problem.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    "carbon fee and dividend legislation"
    If you tax people enough they will stop breathing, happy?

    Whether or not you think C02 is just plant food, that idea is not worth considering.

    Promoting renewable energy, clean air, water, land are good things that almost everyone agrees is a good thing. Why don't you start there.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 10, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    Today's Headline: "Storm pumping up Utah's snowpack, January coldest month since 1949." This headline: "Time for climate change action". So, which is it? Contradictions anyone? Exactly what actions should be taken? Do we spend time and money trying to find ways to warm thing up or cool things down? What exactly should be done and has any considered the futility of it or the costs? Exactly what would the benefits be? More cold weather are more warm weather?