Letters to the editor, April 11, 2008

Mixed opinions on climate change taxes

Editor's note: The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) linked to the editorial we ran from the Orange County Register Tuesday ("Los Angeles considers global warming tax"), prompting interesting responses from across the world.

Below are two letters to the editor we received, but more than 30 additional comments were posted online following the editorial.
 
To put the whole climate change issue into perspective vis-à-vis the peak oil crisis, everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of president of the United States, “What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial one degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a one percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks — with steepening declines forecast?

“Furthermore, can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, the most likely scenario given the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model forecasts of climate change?” Solar cycle # 24 will tell the tale. The problem is not average global warming. The problem is the end of cyclical warming coincident with the onset of peak oil.

Concerning your editorial about LA, pay a tax and change the weather. I don’t think so, and neither do most Americans with the slightest knowledge of science. I, for one, will simply avoid LA at all costs. Welcome to “1984.”

John A. Jauregui
Garden Valley, Idaho

We read the editorial on a global warming tax  with some dismay. Even if we ignore the larger debate over global warming, the editorial still entirely misses the mark.

The thrust of Assemblyman Feuer’s legislation is to raise needed funds for transit expansion in Los Angeles. Despite the Orange Count Register’s declaration that the funds would go towards projects that are already funded, Metro has identified an entire list of transit projects that would reduce congestion and have $0 dedicated towards them. Increasing transit funding does two things. First, having more trains, light rail and buses, gives people transportation choices and the freedom to decide how they wish to spend their commute. Second, the more people using these transportation alternatives, the less competition for highway space for those who choose to remain in their cars.

And whether it’s global warming, pollution or just common sense, it makes sense to fund transportation problems with transportation fees. Can you think of a fairer way to fund transportation than a user fee on those that put the greatest tax on the system? It just so happens that the least fuel efficient cars are also the cars that are the largest and cause the greatest stress on our already overburdened highway system.

When California highways were built, engineers weren’t counting on the number or size of Explorers and Hummers that use them everyday. Charging the drivers of these vehicles extra for use of the roads is the most reasonable solution that’s been suggested.

Damien Newton and Frederick Dennstedt
Editors of LA Streetsblog and MetroRider
Los Angeles