Fossil fuel folly
The writer of “Extinction” (May 12 Letters to the Editor) extolled his foreign adventures and then advocated replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable solar energy and wind power, something that, if successful, would virtually preclude further foreign travel for him and would deprive others of ever sharing his enjoyable travel experiences.
Dependence on renewable energy would have huge implications on all modes of transportation. All air travel would be eliminated. Water travel would revert to sailing ships and man-powered oars. Rail travel would no longer be possible because locomotives are powered by fossil fuels. Electric automobile batteries could be recharged only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing within a certain velocity range.
If renewable energy is not available when it is needed, we would simply have to stand by until it was. Or else, of course, we could always revert back to buggies powered by reliable horses.
Anyone who has aspirations to travel are well advised to not delay. After all, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez allows us only 12 years to shape up and eliminate all fossil fuels or else the world will come to an end.
David J. Gudeman, Wichita
Climate science has a consensus
In “Region’s cycle of tornadoes could become the new normal” (May 26 Eagle), the scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of global climate change was understated. The article stated that most scientists support this consensus; however, the scientific consensus among climate scientists is 97%. While some scientists are not yet convinced that we are the primary cause of climate change, they are primarily experts in fields not related to climate science.
We can’t all study the evidence to determine whether climate change is primarily caused by humans. So, who would you rather believe that we should take action on climate change? Fossil fuel industry trade groups and the politicians they support? Or, climate scientists who study the data and to get their research published must withstand the scrutiny of other scientists?
Helen Hands, Hays
Tim for the Insurrection Act
With the ideological gridlock consuming the legislative and judicial branches of government and their de facto collaboration in the invasion of the United States from Central America, it may be time to invoke the “Insurrection Act” of 1807 to secure the border and begin removal of the invaders from our country.
The act was used in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to quell the Los Angeles riots and by President Eisenhower in 1957 to enforce school desegregation. Even critics of the “Insurrection Act” concede that under current circumstances precedent falls within the lawful scope of the president’s authority.
It’s time to protect the American people as the mechanisms of orderly government break down under the weight of organized criminal activity along our southern border.
Gregory Bontrager, Hutchinson
Should have skipped Pitts
Leonard Pitts’ May 26 column is definitely one I should have skipped. He used innuendo and uncertain facts to berate President Trump.
Mr. Pitts, President Trump has done more good for all the people of the country in his brief time in office than many presidents have in a lifetime. He has improved the economy. We now are respected around the world. Israel has been treated and recognized by him better than by any president since Truman. His initiative has placed trade with China on a more favorable basis and, as with anything important, it will take time to materialize.
He has had patience with a do-nothing Congress. It is high time he “had a tantrum” when he faces people sitting smugly in The White House. He should have lost his temper a long time ago, Mr. Pitts.
Jon E. Ehrsam, Wichita