The next president should be a woman; the new camera look is cheap; keep climate targets on track; pump pain is also on Biden

0

Sue Winthrop: Elections: our next leader must be a woman

I am 63 years old. My vision for my sons is that their world would be kinder and sweeter. This is not the case. It seems to me that so many people in the United States are turning to violence to get what they need. There seems to be an intolerance of differences. Differences in someone’s beliefs or appearance. I voted for President Joe Biden and I feel like he’s doing the best he can with what he’s been given. I think of his compassion and understanding of the loss. I admire his faith in his fellow man and that our world will become a better place. President Biden has hope.

Even so, I sincerely believe that the next leader of the United States must be a woman. Women seem to have the ability to coordinate their head and heart. We need someone to get this country out of the impossible situation we seem to be in. I am saddened by the increase in armed violence and by groups that want to take power by force. Hate crimes are on the rise, including anti-Semitism which is hitting hard. Many of my relatives were wiped out by the Nazis during World War II. We need someone to lead this country who understands human behavior and is willing to compromise. I have faith in the goodness of my fellow men. This faith is what keeps me going. It seems to me that the next leader of this country must have faith. They must be able to identify with everyone, regardless of race, creed and age.

Our country is in turmoil. It is time for us to come together and peacefully find a solution.

Sue Winthrop, Longmont


Theodore Kramer: Camera: the new look is cheap, disappointing

I am disappointed with the “new look” of the Daily Camera. It looks cheap like a grocery store flyer. Also, the size of the text has decreased, making it harder to read. Please reconsider your changes.

Thank you longtime reader.

Theodore Kramer, Boulder


Art Hirsch: Environment: Let’s keep Colorado’s climate goals on track

Hardly anyone is really monitoring the state of Colorado’s greenhouse gas emission reductions to fight climate change; however, everyone should keep an eye on the performance of the Air Quality Control Board and the Air Pollution Control Division in protecting our air quality. Now is our chance.

The State of Colorado is required to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 26% by 2025, 50% by 2030, and 90% by 2050 from at 2005 levels (House Bill 19-1261). There are many emitting sectors that create these greenhouse gas emissions, such as transport (the first polluter); electricity production ; residential, commercial and industrial; fossil fuels; and agricultural.

The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division has now developed a Colorado Greenhouse Gas Metric Dashboard for Colorado citizens to monitor greenhouse gas emissions over time. The dashboard is updated quarterly. This allows us to see whether legislative requirements for reducing greenhouse gases are being met by our state agencies. The dashboard contains an introductory summary, a graph of GHG emissions, and sectoral metrics, such as natural gas production, gasoline sales, electric vehicle sales, and more. This is a resource we should watch.

If you have any questions or comments about the dashboard, I suggest you contact Andrew Bare of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division ([email protected]). Let’s make sure Colorado meets these greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements.

Art Hirsch, Boulder


Carl Brady: Gas prices: Biden’s politics deserve blame for the increase

Gregory Iwan’s June 20 column, “A Few Facts About Oil Prices,” referenced one of my May 22 letters. I’m a bit perplexed by his concluding sentences: “I respect Mr. Brady’s comments. But I doubt their validity.

I began this letter with two quotes from historian Victor Davis Hanson regarding the left’s longstanding belief that the only way to achieve its goal of discouraging driving was to encourage high fuel prices.

Next, I recounted my personal experience in 1997, where I overheard senior Clinton administration officials discussing the use of high gas prices to discourage Americans from driving. I said it showed that the idea has been around for a long time on the left. I am intrigued by the part of what I wrote that Mr. Iwan found invalid.

Mr Iwan argues that our current high fuel prices are “due to Vladimir Putin and all of us”. By “all of us” he seems to be implying that the increased demand from all of us driving more has driven gas prices up. The data does not support this. Less driving due to COVID lockdowns from March 2020 appears to be the reason for the average price of regular gasoline in the United States to drop to $1.77 on April 27, 2020. But it had reinstated to Biden’s inauguration date.

From Biden’s inauguration to Putin’s invasion, the average price of gasoline rose from about $2.40 to $3.50, or almost 50%. This increase can be attributed almost solely to Biden’s declared war on fossil fuels. The price has risen at an even faster rate since then from a combination of Putin and Biden, reaching the almost unbelievable level of over $5.00 in mid-June this year. Without Biden’s actions and inactions, we would have had enough oil and gas to mitigate much of the disruption caused by Putin’s invasion.

Carl Brady, Frederick

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.