Balancing the climate crisis against state's need for jobs
It was disappointing to see The Sun encourage delay on fighting global climate change ("Striking a balance," editorial, Feb. 26).
One thing we've learned from Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts is that if we don't set specific, incremental goals, no one is held accountable and little progress is achieved.
The Chesapeake Bay region is at severe risk from pollution and climate change, and the time for action was yesterday. Today we are playing catch-up, and tomorrow will be too late.
The federal government has failed to produce meaningful climate change legislation, and just last week, Rep. Chris Van Hollen told a meeting of concerned citizens in Annapolis that the best way to hold federal feet to the fire was for the states to move forward with climate change legislation.
The Global Climate Change Solutions Act is just such a bill.
It is designed to make fundamental, incremental reductions in carbon dioxide levels that will help avert imminent damage to the state and to solidify Maryland's role as a national leader in carbon reduction.
The state's carbon reduction goals are not overly ambitious.
Six states have set goals in the 80 percent to 90 percent reduction range, and 26 states have adopted lesser limitations.
And there are economic upsides. "Green jobs" can provide an economic boost at the same time that pollution is reduced.
There is no doubt that climate change is here, affecting local rivers, streams and the bay.
There is no doubt that rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms threaten coastal populations.
There is no doubt that we need to reduce pollution, now.
We need the road map, specific goals and milestones provided by the Global Climate Change Solutions Act.
William C. Baker
Annapolis
The writer is president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
The Sun completely missed the mark in its editorial on Maryland's global warming legislation.
My company is proud to be one of the hundreds of businesses that have expressed support for this critical bill.
We support the bill not just because it's the right thing to do but also because we believe it will open up a world of incredible opportunities for new businesses to grow and flourish in the state.
Maryland is well on its way to becoming a clean-energy business hub. And this bill will help vault us to the top.
Of course, every gain comes with some drawbacks.
There are aging, possibly poorly managed companies that have not adapted to the global economy and will thus have difficulty in the new clean-energy world. However, many of these companies will be in trouble whether we pass this bill or not.
The bottom line is that Gov. Martin O'Malley has set a dynamic tone in Annapolis and is leading Maryland to a cleaner, better future that will create jobs, attract new industries and enable us to do our part in the fight against climate change.
I applaud him for doing so.
Gary Skulnik
Rockville
The writer is president of Clean Currents LLC.
I am writing to express my concern over and disagreement with the bill before the General Assembly that calls for a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and a 90 percent cut by 2050.
This bill could be extremely detrimental to the working families of Western Maryland.
I understand that we all must do our part to preserve our precious environment. I also understand that the climate crisis is real.
However, another crisis is real in the mountains of Western Maryland: a profound labor crisis. Allegany County has lost too many well-paying manufacturing jobs.
Given these losses, the bill would deal a disproportionate blow to working-class families in Western Maryland.
For instance, the NewPage Holding Corp.'s paper mill in the town of Luke has made great strides toward efficiency, not only to protect the environment but also to stay competitive in an unbalanced world economy.
But we cannot afford legislation that ignores Western Maryland's continuing fight to keep jobs.
Gov. Martin O'Malley says we must act now to reduce global climate change.
I believe we must act now to protect working families in Western Maryland, including the employees of the NewPage paper mill.
The governor's promise of thousands of future "green jobs" for Maryland's economy will be of no comfort to the working families of Western Maryland, whose quality of life would be directly harmed by this legislation.
Amel Morris
Westernport
The writer is commissioner of finance for the town of Westernport.
Public financing won't heal rifts
As Maryland considers shoveling millions of taxpayer dollars into political campaigns, state legislators should realize that these welfare-for-politician schemes have not worked out the way their advocates claim they do ("State mulls finance reform," Feb. 26).
Despite the heated rhetoric, some research suggests that contributions do not influence the votes of elected officials and that government financing will not decrease the alleged power of interest groups.
Indeed, since Maine, a state cited by public financing proponents as having a model program, enacted government financing, the number of lobbyists in the state has doubled.
Instead of blaming "special interest" contributions for the failure to pass major reforms, reform advocates need to recognize that many of their fellow citizens have honest and significant disagreements over what changes need to be made.
Alexandria, Va.
The writer is president of the Center for Competitive Politics.
Why waste money mailing taxpayers?
I am no economics expert, but I am certain that there must be some hidden wisdom in giving tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes.
However, one thing mentioned in Eileen Ambrose's column "Getting out the word on rebates" (Feb. 26) really does raise a question for me, or make that two questions.
The column mentions that the IRS will be sending us a letter telling us if we qualify for the rebate and will then send a follow-up to that notice about a week before we get our check.
My first question is: Why the mailings? Why not just send the checks?
My second question is: How much will these two unnecessary mailings cost?
The media seem to have done a very good job in getting the word out about rebates.
Do we really need two mailings to replicate that message?
Bob Di Stefano
Abingdon
Marriage carries economic impact
The writer of the letter "Marriage not matter of dollars and cents" (Feb. 26) denies that marriage is a business issue and that discussion of same-sex civil marriage has any place in The Sun's business section.
He is wrong. Civil marriage is many things - including a ratification of a contract between two people who agree to share a life and to share the assets they bring to the marriage, a declaration of the establishment of a joint household and a pronouncement that two individuals have become one in the eyes of the state.
Civil marriage is not a sacrament. And nothing in the legislation under consideration in Annapolis to bring equality to Maryland's civil marriage laws would have any impact on religious issues; in fact, the proposed law explicitly protects those religious bodies that might not be comfortable providing sacramental approval to a same-sex civil marriage.
Deciding to marry is indeed also a moral issue.
Many same-sex couples have long ago made the moral decision to unite as one.
All they are seeking now is access to the same protections the state affords other couples.
Hugh Silcox
Baltimore
War wastes billions we need at home
The hundreds of billions of dollars we have squandered on the unjustified war in Iraq have an opportunity cost attached to them.
The money devoted to this war could have been spent to provide health insurance for the country's 47 million people without it, repair our deteriorating infrastructure and improve our schools.
The economic consequences of the war are just another reason that we need to end this travesty quickly.
Paul D. Stolley
Columbia