Letter to the editor: Green New Deal is ill-advised | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Green New Deal is ill-advised

Although some experts contend “global warming and cooling” are cyclical over long periods of time, most scientists indicate that global warming is a real and critical issue that needs addressed now. Accordingly, the Green New Deal was recently unveiled and advocates elimination of (or at least 50% reductions in) sources of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases within 12 years.

Many Democrats are on board with the extreme, unattainable and prohibitively expensive objectives of the plan, but nothing has been said about required participation of other nations. Although the United States is the leading “per capita” contributor of greenhouse gases, China is No. 1 and the leading overall (total) contributor of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, emitting nearly twice that of No. 2 U.S. India is No. 3, Russia No. 4 and Japan No. 5, along with all other nations to a lesser extent.

Reduction or even total elimination of these emissions by the United States will do very little overall without the participation of numerous other nations. Therefore, the apparent urgent and immediate unilateral action being proposed by the Democrats for the U.S. is both premature and ill-advised.

John Lapina


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.