Hi 44° | Lo 20°

Letter: If not now, when?

Jasen Stock wrote “New Hampshire’s residents know what works best for them. They do not need advice from national organizations about how New Hampshire should manage renewable energy sources” (“Renewable power law is good for New Hampshire’s economy,” Monitor Forum, Dec. 1).

He should have said that New Hampshire residents do not need advice about how to manage renewable energy sources from national organizations that are founded and funded by oil tycoons who oppose renewable energy because it conflicts with their business model.

He should have said that New Hampshire residents know what works best for them and they owe it to their fellow Americans to share this information – because New Hampshire residents can see the dire effects of climate change (to their ski areas, tourist businesses, rivers, forests, maples and maple syrup industry and through the loss of river fishing, rising sea level and damage to coastal area).

New Hampshire residents owe it to themselves and to their fellow Americans to call the White House (202-456-1111) and request that President Obama give a series of weekly televised talks from now until the State of the Union address explaining why climate change is the single most important project he needs to tackle during his second term of office. He needs to explain the options for fighting climate change and he needs to reassure Americans that “Yes We Can.” He needs to shout down the oil and gas companies that are spending millions misleading the public.

He needs to explain to Americans: If not now, when?


Brookline, Mass.

(The writer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby.)

Legacy Comments10

If not now, when? The answer, NEVER!

What I find extremely humorous is Ms. Weiss makes the point that NH residents "know what is best for NH" but she is from Brookline MA!!! Leave the policies to NH Residents!!! I appreciate that the Monitor took the time to reveal the hometown and occupation of the author for perspective in the letter. It is responsible journalism and gives me hope for the Monitor.

Funny how the left thinks the right was fed a diet of lies, yet they cannot fathom the idea that maybe they were fed lies. I guess the media only tells the truth if they are left leaning. You cannot expect folks to understand science. We do have climate change going on, but the question is how much and at what rate. Many claims have been proven false, or embellished. The legacy of the president is less important than the impact he has on this country. As fars a green investments, the records are there what was spent and what was accomplished. Who buys what cars and the cost of those cars. We have rejected smaller cars for many years. look on the roads, all trucks and big SUVs. Many who have bought hybrids do not buy them again. Look at the records. Unfortunately science is a struggle for most. That is why they believe the media.

You have been to Japan, so you must know that the cars are smaller and the gas price is larger than here in the US. In the US taxpayers are paying, on average, about $460 per year to the IRS to cover the $100 billion cost of defending the flow of foreign oil at bases like the one in Bahrain. If we paid that $460/yr at the pump, rather than directly to the IRS, we would be driving a lot more fuel efficient cars here. If we made this simple change there would be no additional net cost to taxpayers on average, and we would significantly reduce our oil consumption. Why wouldn't Conservatives want to conserve energy by making this change?

A closer examination of each statement you've made would reveal there is no substance to your claims--which is one reason you have not bothered to provide documentation to support them. Lies about climate change being fed by the "left-leaning" media? That's a canard oft-told by the right that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Those many climate change claims "proven false, or embellished" would be what exactly? Document your claims--and they can be dealt with factually, though if you're thinking of polar bear populations (endangered by climate change, despite misleading claims to the contrary) or supposed claims by scientists in the 70's of "global cooling" (highly exaggerated: there were a handful of scientists who got a Newsweek cover out of their claims--that was the extent of it). As for green investments, try looking at the totality of the green energy investments, not just the Solyndra story. And it's a safe bet we're going to see rapidly increasing numbers of small, fuel-efficient cars in this country, starting several years ago--about the time the Hummer bought the farm. News to bunny: the era of the large SUV is over. As for the media, there is nothing comparable to Faux News as a cheerleader for the right and chronic disseminator of misleading and distorted information.Don't confuse that with the real journalism practiced by the major networks and newspapers You can look it all up--just don't rely on Faux for the facts on any of it.

Oh yes...Obama should give weekly televised talks about climate change. His re election campaign alone probably had the carbon footprint of a small city of us regular folks. "People of the world..he droned.."Do as I say..NOT as I do!!"...When i see Obama downsizing, traveling less, or otherwise trying to conserve anything...I might take notice.

The conservation measures taken by Democratic occupants of the White House--including the current occupant, are well documented and easily researched. This mean-spirited and ungracious posting conflates private efforts with those of the duties required of the head of state of the most powerful nation on the planet. The election is over, and we're still waiting for Republicans to acknowledge reality: that they lost the election, that their party is ideologically extreme, from from the mainstream of social and economic policy, contemptuous of the findings of science on climate change and of economics on the non-efficacy of tax cuts, and (as is alluded to by this post) dismissive of the legitimacy of Obama as president. From what nether regions are such sentiments dredged? the carbon footprint of a head of state of the most powerful nation on the planet is what? Acceptable? If CO2 is killing the planet, then Obama should lead by example. I don't see it. Question...what was the cost of Obamas re election in jet and auto fuel alone? How worried IS he really????? BTW...republicans lost the election. Acknowledged. Cross it off your list.

"what was the cost of Obamas re election in jet and auto fuel alone?" I don't know. What was the cost of Romney's re election in jet and auto fuel alone? Kinda like your recent post insinuating that Liberals use the most energy.

Obama will make much more significant changes to our carbon emissions by serious policy initiatives aimed at greater conservation by the nation, as well as new and more widespread green energy funding, not to mention killing the Keystone Pipeline. Any and all of which will surely be denounced by the far-right's minions--force-fed a steady diet of scientific distortions and outright lies on the issue of climate change. Humans emitted roughly 34 billion tons of carbon last year. One cross-country jet flight emits 2.5 tons. Even 100 flights represents a tiny fraction of the world total. The writer's laughably faux concern for the climate--frequently expressed here and elsewhere as a demand that Obama essentially quit his job, betrays the right's continuing contempt for both Obama and for the science supporting our understanding of the climate change issue.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.