CO2 emissions major factor in global warming

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, the number of people who believe there is no solid evidence of man-made global warming has declined over the past three years from 71 percent to 57 percent [“2-day Seattle visit; emphasis on global-warming bill and health efforts,” NWTuesday, Oct. 27].

Whether man-made global warming is real or not, is not a matter of belief, but a matter of physics. As sure as heat rises and the sun will come up tomorrow, the earth will heat up as atmospheric CO2 levels rise. The laws of physics and the molecular structure of the CO2 molecule make it certain — no ideological doubt about it.

Since 1956, atmospheric CO2 levels have skyrocketed. Concentrations are now higher than at any time in the last 1.5 million years.

So, deniers take off your aluminum hats, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid served up by the multinational corporations that have an invested interest in polluting our atmosphere with the climate-altering CO2 molecule.

Study the physics. Then join the realists and help address this challenge before it’s too late.

— Gary Lintz, Lynnwood

Nuclear waste must be dealt with

Nuclear power is not what the industry is trying to make it appear to be. It is neither safe nor essentially carbon-free [“Nuclear power key to climate-bill talks,” news, Oct. 26].

There is more waste in the nuclear path than what is contained in the nuclear reactor. Waste is generated in mining, processing and storage, as well as within the reactor. Our country has been using nuclear energy for more than 65 years, and yet there is still no safe, long-term storage for much of the vast amount of waste that has been generated.

It is true the reactors themselves use little carbon, as stated in The Seattle Times article, however, large amounts of carbon are involved in the nuclear cycle, all of which contribute to global warming.

Eventually, a long-term storage site must be developed. This will require massive digging and construction, in addition to further transportation of nuclear waste.

One single nuclear electric reactor would cost around $10 billion. That amount does not include waste storage or the cost of fully insuring the facility in case of a nuclear disaster.

A better use of the money would be to research and develop more energy-efficient cars, refrigerators, heating and cooling systems, etc. We also need to continue to develop renewable energy sources such as wind, ocean and solar panels.

The United States can solve its energy problems without resorting to dangerous nuclear power. We must not listen to lobbyists who have their company’s best interest at heart, rather than their country’s best interest.

— Ted Coskey, Seattle