Denial of study funding is shocking
March 27, 2022
I was shocked that the Fresno Country Board of Supervisors would vote against a project that would collect data on the effects of climate change in rural areas of the Val-ley.
Problems can't be solved unless they are first understood. The data collected over a 20-year period would give us important informa-tion.
I hope the supervisors will reconsider their vote. -
Pat Reeves, Fresno
Time to become prepared is now
March 27, 2022
I was disappointed that the Fresno County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal by the Dept. of Public Health to accept $175,000 to fund a study on the health impacts of climate change on Fresno County residents.
We need to better understand the health im-pacts of increasingly com-mon events like wildfire smoke drifting in from across the state. We need to find ways to shield our most vulnerable residents with asthma, COPD and heart disease from those events.
I agree with the county supervisors that agriculture is important to Fresno County. But climate change threatens both Valley crops and Valley children. As any girl or boy Scout would tell you, "Be prepared."
- Don Gaede, Fresno
On county denying funds for study
March 27, 2022
I truly appreciated your March 1 editorial, taking the Fresno County Board of Supervisors to task for turning away funds to study the local impacts of climate change.
It is disturbing that we have elected leaders who would prefer to ignore urgent public health hazards so that they can carry on with business as usual. It is especially disturbing that the study would have focused on vulnerable populations and would likely be useful for applying for more funds to address problems in the Valley.
Thank you for providing the public with information about this issue. I will share your editorial with the 1,000-plus members of Citizens' Climate Lobby-Fresno. -
Andrea Farber De Zubiria, Fresno
County board refuses to see risks
March 13, 2022
In the Feb. 27 issue, The Bee reported that the county Board of supervisors rejected a grant to study health impacts of climate change, with Supervisor Magsig questioning whether such a study would fit with local agriculture, and Supervisor Brandau, unsurprisingly, making vague statements about the “sketchy” people who would do the study — with no clear example of what was sketchy about them.
This is, unfortunately, fairly typical of these two, and of the council as a whole as of late. When granted the opportunity to do their duty and help identify problems for their constituents in order to be prepared, they have chosen instead to bury their heads in the sand.
Every summer we see how climate change causes health problems by burning the Sierra, and we are now seeing how climate change-fueled droughts can impact local agriculture. But apparently the BoS feels that even acknowledging real-world problems, instead of fighting fictional culture wars and pursuing fringe Libertarian economic theories, is somehow not appropriate.
Failing to acknowledge the risks that the Valley faces from climate change is a dereliction of duty. I hope that the voters of Fresno County will hold these people responsible.
Matthew Armstrong, Fresno
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article259290964.html
Pick candidates who get climate
January 30, 2022
The “C” word is everywhere now. That’s C for “climate.”
And I’m glad to see it’s being talked about. The article by Seth Borenstein on Jan. 11 spelled out the problem — all the credible experts like NASA and NOAA say our rising greenhouse gas emissions “are making weather-related disasters nastier and more frequent.” The horrendous costs of the damage are clear. The 2020 Yale Opinion Poll showed that 70% of people in Fresno County are worried about global warming (which causes climate change). And over 70% say it will hurt plants, animals and future generations.
What we aren’t seeing enough of is the “S” word. That’s S for “solutions.”
That same poll shows most people in Fresno County want to see policies that help solve the problem. These include things like tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles and solar panels, funding research into renewable energy and requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a tax on emissions.
We are headed into elections soon. Let’s only elect Valley members of Congress who will support policies like these to protect our air, water and climate, so we can look forward to a healthy future.
-------------------
Andrea Farber De Zubiria
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article257759098.html
Here is Seth Borenstein's AP article which Andrea mentions in her letter:
https://apnews.com/article/climate-wildfires-science-business-health-61ed7fe7d3c52a70fe2b72c881b0d0cf
Appreciating the support on climate
January 9, 2022
We thank congressman Jim Costa for his votes to pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Build Back Better Act.
Both bills have important provisions that will help America reach our 2030 and 2050 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The IIAJ, which is bipartisan, includes monies for electric vehicle charging stations, zero emission buses, and cleaning up old oil and gas wells. It adds protections against climate-related disasters, such as wildfires.
It allocates $12 billion for “intercity rail service, including high-speed rail.” Although California’s HSR is not earmarked, Costa is working to secure our share. HSR will bring jobs to our area. Once it gets built, HSR will significantly reduce emissions. This has been a Costa priority for many years.
The House version of the BBBA, passed by Democrats only, has many climate provisions. It has incentives for clean power plants, carbon capture, electric vehicles, rebuilding the electric grid, nuclear power, getting rid of methane leaks, and more. The Senate might even add a carbon fee and dividend, which is strongly favored by economists.
Devin Carroll, Fresno
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article257084592.html
Changing solar rules bad idea
January 9, 2022
The California Public Utilities Commission wants to allow investor-owned utility companies like PG&E to raise the utility rates for rooftop solar customers. PG&E would cut in half the credit that it pays to owners of rooftop solar and add on a $40 a month “grid participation charge” to connect to the power grid. Here’s what’s wrong about the PUC’s proposal:
1. It is based on pitting homeowners of rooftop solar against other utility ratepayers by allowing PG&E to charge higher rates to non-solar customers in order to continue to favor profits for shareholders and highly paid executives.
2. It puts rooftop solar out of reach for working and middle-class families by lengthening the years it takes to recoup the average cost of $20,000 for solar installation.
3. It is based on the false assumption that the current credits to solar customers go only to wealthy ratepayers, when 42% of installations in California were to households with less than $100,000 in annual income.
4. Perhaps most importantly, by making rooftop solar more costly, it would “cripple California’s ability to meet a legislative mandate to eliminate carbon from the electricity grid by 2045” to fight climate change, according to solar advocates.
Lynn Jacobsson, Clovis
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article257084592.html
