To the editor: I absolutely agree with David Helvarg’s concern that Alaska is both a climate victim and a perpetrator. However he didn’t point out two mandatory actions for well timed mitigation of local weather change.
First, we want extra nuclear energy, the one non-warming vitality supply that may shortly meet the size of our demand with out undue habitat destruction.
Second, current fossil gasoline crops should cut back their operations and global-warming emissions as renewables scale up. Such renewables embody California desert solar energy, not too long ago and surprisingly characterised as producing surplus vitality.
Sure, these two steps will increase the price of energy. However will we or gained’t we take the mandatory actions to avoid wasting our solely spaceship and its treasured inhabitants, whether or not polar bears in Alaska or Joshua timber within the California desert?
J. Philip Barnes, San Pedro
..
To the editor: One has to surprise simply how “inexperienced” Eland or every other photo voltaic farm actually is. (“L.A.’s massive new solar farm is cheap and impressive. More, please,” column, Dec. 5)
First is the problem of habitat destruction (even when the land in query was an alfalfa area at one time). Then there’s the query of what occurs to all these fantastic photo voltaic panels and batteries as soon as they’ve handed their life span (ditto for windmill blades).
I’m in all probability not alone in wishing we’d spend as a lot on conserving vitality as creating it.
Sara Schmidhauser, Isla Vista
