LETTERS: EPA rules helpful, not an overreach
To the editor:
Why is it that people and industries from outside Nevada like to tell us what to think and how to run our state? This happened once again with an commentary in the Viewpoints section (“California-style clean a mess for consumers,” June 14 Review-Journal). The editorial staff at the Review-Journal thought it would be a good idea to have Tom Tanton, a Big Oil-funded, out-of-state, Reason Foundation energy “expert,” tell you and me what is best for Nevada.
I’m fed up with outside corporate interests telling us what’s best when their real agenda is obvious: help their friends and themselves line their pockets. The point of Mr. Tanton’s piece was to warn Nevada against adopting California’s strict carbon emission goals through the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon pollution rule, set to be released later this summer. The entire piece was flawed in that it tried to present the new rule as some dictatorial federal conspiracy to take over your energy choices. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I read it, the rule is essentially a goal for Nevada to attain a 30 percent reduction of carbon pollution from 2005 levels by the year 2030. According to our state’s own experts, we already have done quite a bit to meet that goal, but that’s not the point. The EPA is presenting a goal, and we have the freedom to achieve that goal through sources and programs we feel best fit our state’s interests. This seems to be anything but a government overreach.
Nevada already leads the nation in per-capita solar job growth, has seen more than $5.5 billion in renewable energy investment since 2010 and boasts the greatest geothermal generation potential of any state, with geothermal among the most reliable renewable energy resources available. In fact, solar and geothermal already account for 10 percent of the state’s energy generation.
As a native Nevadan and a business owner, I think it is important for Nevadans to take the advice of an out-of-state, fossil-fuel shill with a grain of salt. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Tanton. Nevada has it covered.
REID HAMILTON
RENO
The author is founder and chief executive officer of Hamilton Solar.
Obeying police commands
To the editor:
Over the past few months, I have read or watched on the nightly news myriad stories pertaining to police actions brought on by citizens acting boisterously in direct opposition to spoken commands directed at them. In every instance, law enforcement has been identified as being at fault to some degree, with discipline ranging from censure to termination and even criminal charges at the hands of foul-mouthed, anti-law abiding criminals
This is all because of one important aspect of the duty of citizens: No citizen has the right, be they black, white or any other race, to defy police when officers follow their legal obligation to do their job. If in any of these cases the perpetrators would have simply obeyed commands, which they are required to do, none of these overzealous victims would be victims at all.
I encounter these people on a daily basis and have a growing sympathy for law enforcement officers who are subjected to the mindless acts of arrogant, drug-addled or intoxicated people who have no respect for police officers or fellow humans. None of these news stories mentions what caused the police to react like humans when confronted by human garbage.
Here’s a little advice to avoid being manhandled, thrown to the ground or even shot: shut your mouth and do what the police tell you to do. If you believe you are being treated unfairly, file a complaint at a later time.
BRUCE SCHOWERS
LAS VEGAS
Education savings accounts
To the editor:
Regarding Glenn Cook’s column on Education Savings Accounts (“ESAs can cover private school tuition” June 14 Review-Journal), legally, when a homeowner is taxed, part of the money collected is for support of public schools in our state. Is it really legal for the state to give it to anyone who qualifies, to use that money for private school tuition without the public’s approval?
We are asked to provide a certain amount to keep our schools running, yet we don’t have a say when it is used for something other than what it is being collected for. Furthermore, it could be given to someone whose income is such that they are not even paying taxes. There is something wrong with this, and the public needs to decide whether they agree with this.
I am in favor of a quality education for all students, but there is something fundamentally wrong with this approach.
ED WAGNER
LAS VEGAS
Jenner and Dolezal
To the editor:
Why is Rachel Dolezal being berated for pretending to be an African-American woman, looking and dressing the part, while Bruce Jenner is glorified because he pretends to be a woman, dresses like a woman and wears his hair like a woman? Why is what Mr. Jenner has done any different? People do not call him mentally ill.
CAROL MCKENZIE
LAS VEGAS
