Share This Page

Imperiled indeed

| Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the editorial “State of the union: It is imperiled” (Feb. 13 and TribLIVE.com): The state of the union is imperiled for another reason as well. If it were true that “(h)eat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods — all are now more frequent and intense,” as the president said in his State of the Union address, then he should boost the most affordable and reliable energy sources to cope with these hazards.

Yet in discussing solutions to these dangers, Obama said nothing about the most affordable and reliable energy source of all — coal, from which comes fully half of America's electricity.

Obama is out to end coal-fired power generation in the U.S. It is not because of supply problems — the U.S. has enough to last for centuries. It is not because of cost — coal is the least expensive of all sources and, unlike natural gas, its price remains steady for years. It is not because of pollution — modern coal-fired power stations are far cleaner than ever before.

It is because the president believes that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, coal in particular, are causing a climate crisis. Yet this idea is falling into disrepute as the world fails to warm as forecast by computer models, even while CO2 continues to rise quickly.

It's time for Obama to change his mind about America's most important power source. Without that energy, the state of the union is very weak indeed!

Tom Harris

Ottawa, Canada

The writer is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (climatescienceinternational.org).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.