Fewer taxes, less government control

In response to Cliff Heselton of Philomath (Letters, July 13), I would like to assert that we have too many taxes already. Instead of finding ways to replace taxes with new ones, we should reduce spending. We need to distance ourselves from the underlying principle that the government needs more money. We can get by with less government and still get the necessary stuff done. There is only so much taxation, and the resulting loss of freedom, that can be supported.

Consider the slow creep of too much government control. Recently I read that Albany has a two-dog limit per household. Is that really a necessary infringement of our freedoms by the government? We just ran a family out of town because of it. This law may seem minor but not to that family.

What about this? Lebanon has a law that restricts multiple family members of their community from being on the city council. Do we really need a law that reduces a person’s ability to participate in the political process? Why isn’t the ballot box the solution for those who opposed the idea of too much political power in one family? Run a campaign opposing this candidate based on that; don’t take away his ability to participate. Where does that thinking end?

The government is out of control or, more accurately, out to control too much of our lives. Unchecked, it will do just that. Please realize that both of our political parties have the net result of increasing government control by waging a form of economic warfare — taxation.

Let’s think about what we are accomplishing here and reduce government spending and thereby reduce the government’s ability to control too much of our lives. Just common sense, folks.

Jeff Bromley

Albany

Energy efficiency: Think simple first

I read the article on solar photovoltaics (PV) at the wastewater plant. For some reason massive government expenditures, even when it’s on things we think are good, bother me. This is true for solar PVs as well as corn-based ethanol.

For 15 years I have manufactured, sold or installed energy-efficient lighting. Years and years ago I did the same with solar water heaters. As a liberal Democrat, I feel like a heretic to be against massive solar subsidies.

PVs are extremely expensive (spend $20,000; save $250 per year) with huge subsidies. Unfortunately, large tax credits will not get prices down anytime soon.

Ideally PVs will come down in price either through nanotech, concentrating PV systems, but there is too much low-hanging fruit with efficiency to be wasting so much time and money on something so expensive.

Many would say that conventional fuels have had huge subsidies for years and renewables are playing catch up — this is true. Or that solar is better than coal or nuclear — this is also true.

To think that solar will offset a significant amount of our electric supply is nearsighted at best. There is not an unlimited source of tax money. Many states are rethinking their solar incentives, just as many countries are rethinking their efforts with corn-based ethanol.

Since 1979 at average costs and average savings, all solar domestic water heaters in Oregon have an installed cost $72,000,000 with $25,200,000 in state tax credits and 33,600,000 in kwh savings per year.

For comparison our lights (sold all over the U.S.) at a cost of $14,400,000, if all were in Oregon, would have garnered a tax credit of $5,040,000 and saved 49,275,000 kwh/year.

There are more cost-effective lighting retrofit types than specifically our light, and solar thermal is about three times more cost effective than solar PV. I suppose a conclusion would be that the state should give away energy efficiency for free before subsidizing renewables.

I think saving energy and using renewables is not just a good idea — it is a necessity — but let’s do the smart, simple, non-sexy things first. Insulate, weather-strip, CFLs, drive slower, better lighting — it’s not rocket science.

There are now so many applications at the Department of Energy for projects that it takes months for paperwork to get processed. They are self-funding, they lowered their fees, but the legislature is moving glacially to get them extra help. E-mails and calls to the governor’s office and many legislators have gotten absolutely no help on this problem, while they openly support energy efficiency.

Peter Greenberg

Albany

Emission reduction is essential

Joseph G. West (“The warming hoax: Check it out,” Letters, July 13) believes that we should plan on adaptation and ignore reduction of CO2 emissions as the response to climate change, citing the “climate conspiracy” opinions of a retired television weatherman.

Adaptation is undoubtedly in our future as climate changes through natural or human causes, but ignoring emissions reduction is reckless. Keep in mind that civilization has grown up during about 10,000 years of generally stable global climate; but, during this time, regional natural climate shifts have had devastating impacts on specific societies. We now threaten the entire world simultaneously with climate change, potentially at rates that make adaptation extremely challenging for rich nations and inconceivable for poor nations including Bangladesh and most African countries. The world is full, and entire populations can’t just move into vacant lands (the “Wild North”?) and start again.

One unfortunate aspect of letters such as Mr. West’s is that we are just beginning to see reasons for cautious optimism, brought about by technological progress inspired by the general acceptance of global climate change science and the rising cost of fossil fuels.

In the interests of a workable future for our children, and regardless of the exact magnitude of the human contribution to climate change, we should be encouraging these efforts, not trying to kill public support for exploring sustainable energy options.

Laurence Padman

Corvallis

Oil supply on way to depletion

Depletion of the world’s oil resources is accelerating, but too few are willing to accept this fact. Acceptance by the oil industry explains the eagerness of its companies to obtain drilling leases in every area displaying geologic structures that may have trapped oil and/or natural gas. Its recovery is uncertain, for about 80 percent of drilling is not productive, but the high risk is apparently acceptable in light of the increasing value of a disappearing resource.

The oil industry’s focus on its short-term profit shouldn’t cloud the long-term objectives of government, whose duty is to serve all its people. We cannot continue to attribute the fuel crisis solely to Mideast unrest, “greedy” oil companies and “overprotective” environmentalists. Perhaps, recognition that fossil fuel resources are in an accelerated decline, severely increased costs are certain if fossil fuel demand overcomes supply and environmental degradation is due significantly to fossil fuel combustion will provide the incentive for action.

Increased oil supply from existing stores and conservation can ease today’s crisis; drilling cannot! Nor can drilling solve the long-term problem. United efforts in research and technology will provide affordable, non-polluting renewable energy for the world.

Mike Wolf

Corvallis