Letters to the Editor

Load of crop

When it comes to energy and biofuel production, the best has yet to come

Editor, The Times:

Your otherwise excellent article on biofuels left out a few key elements ["Biofuel backlash," Times, page one, June 8]: First, the influence of the corn lobby goes unmentioned, yet it is largely responsible for the use of corn ethanol and the high prices, partly because of high tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. But ethanol is not the best biofuel due to its lower energy output than biodiesel.

Second, the price of biodiesel is also skewed because it is not subsidized to the extent that petroleum is. If we account for all of the real harm and thus costs of petroleum, its price would be above $25 per gallon, making biodiesel much more attractive.

Lastly, the complaint that biodiesel competes with food crops is a ruse. If we're serious about growing food for people, let's stop using land for animal feed, flowers, tobacco, cacao, coffee, sod, cotton, suburban housing and shopping malls.

That all said, the biggest truth is that there is no way, given our current rate of petroleum consumption, that biofuels, either ethanol or biodiesel from whatever plant, can replace petroleum completely, even if we use every acre of existing farmland. We will have to use other sources of energy, some not yet imagined.

— Timothy Walsh, Seattle

Corn catastrophe

Regarding "Biofuel backlash," I'm glad the many problems with land-based biofuels are finally getting attention. It's time for people to say no to an energy source that causes more carbon emissions than gasoline, threatens to destroy half the world's forests, raises food prices and has caused forced removal of local people in Africa.

Biofuel advocates hold out hope for cellulosic fuels based on switchgrass or other high-energy crops. But economists project that if we turn to such technology, we will lose more than half of what's left of the world's forests by 2100. This loss would be devastating in terms of carbon release, forced displacement of residents and increased droughts.

We are told there is plenty of "degraded land" available for biofuels production. Never mind that people inhabit and subsist on much of this "degraded land." In Tanzania, thousands have been removed to make way for biofuels plantations. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as ethanol and biodiesel are produced at just a fraction of the rate that economists predict by the end of the century.

We need to say no to land-based biofuels, and yes to other clean-energy sources — biofuels from waste and algae, and electric vehicles.

— Sara del Moral, Olympia

Doing a slow burn

Sun tax next, assuming it ever gets nice out

The asinine idea of banning bonfires at Alki Beach and Golden Gardens by Seattle Parks and Recreation ["No fire ban at Alki, Golden Gardens," Local News, June 7] is a frightening example of how the doomsday philosophy of the "world-ending" global-warming scare has poisoned our logic. Have we arrived at the point where we consider banning a natural element to comfort a political frenzy?

Fire was here before humans walked the planet. Fire burns within the planet. We need fire to keep warm and cook our food. Fire is the foremost reason that caused our initial separation from the other animals. And then charging a fee for fire? Low-income people then could not afford to enjoy one of Mother Nature's basic creations ... but then the poor should not really enjoy anything, right?

How about this: If too many beach fires are destroying the environment, then let's ban outside grilling during the summer. After all, that tasty steak and chicken are helping to destroy the world. Then, your local bar and grill ... well, just make it a bar now. But again, you can cook your food for a fee.

What's next? A sun tax? A breath tax? After all, breathing releases CO2 and helps destroy the environment. Never mind that plants need it to live and give us air to breathe! America has become the epitome of fear. We buy into anything because we are a nation of fraidycats. Oh God, a tornado in Oklahoma — global warming! My toe hurts — global warming! There was another scare tactic like this created to get money from the people: If you sin, you go to hell — but if you pay a few bucks to the church, you'll be all right. But if you don't buy into the fear, then you are a dissident.

The Earth is its own organism and was here before we were here, and will still be here when we are gone. How arrogant it is that humanity believes that its simple, temporary existence has such a holdover a life-form that we barely understand.

People, get your head out of the sand! You want to ban something? Ban fear!

— Floyd Decker, Mountlake Terrace

Freedoms down drain

I had just returned from a trip to the shopping center where I heard no English spoken around me and could not understand the clerk, and traveled over the railroad tracks the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train used to run on before it was taken over by Ron Sims, only to get home and find myself with the plunger in my hands, trying to clear out the plug-up in my government-mandated toilet, when I heard about no bonfires on the beach because of the global warming that is supposedly happening.

I realized that slowly, but surely, my freedoms and liberties are being taken away, and I am one who has simply had enough of it.

— Carol Freedman, Kirkland

Lose tradition, save the planet

It was shocking to read that Seattle Parks and Recreation staff has been spending copious amounts of our tax dollars trying to kill our traditional beach fires under the thinly veiled guise of trying to reduce global warming.

While it seems to make ready sense that some rules may be needed to regulate what gets burned, this attack on Seattle's time-honored beach-fire custom is completely off base. If the Parks Department were serious about reducing global warming, it could start by cutting back our July 4 fireworks to five minutes this year before killing them entirely next year. The Seafair hydro races could be limited to one day and a single flyover by the Blue Angels.

Both these events produce more emissions than all the beach fires combined, but hold on ... they what? They generate massive city revenue? So is this Parks recommendation really about global warming or is it driven by financial gain? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

— Ben Schroeter, Seattle

Sonic boom

A man possessed — and a man dishonest

While I am not invested in whether the Sonics remain or leave Seattle — tax contributions aside — I am offended by elements of the process. In the context of related communications, Clay Bennett's claim, under oath, that his self-description as a "man possessed" referred to a desire to keep the Sonics in Seattle, doesn't even pass the straight-face test ["More revealing Sonics e-mails emerge," page one, May 24].

If our prosecutor's office truly fulfilled its duties without fear or favor, it would charge Bennett with perjury.

— Alex Myrick, Seattle

Here's a 2-for-1 deal

The lawsuits and bickering about the sale of the Sonics and their move to Oklahoma City may go on forever. I suggest the following compromise: Stop all litigation and bickering and let Clay Bennett move the Sonics now — if he promises to take the Mariners, too.

— Harry Petersen, Bellevue