Dear Editors,

I am a Durango resident of five years, having retired from a long career in the energy and electronics industries. Lately, I have become concerned about a strong current of intellectual parochialism pervading the local culture. Let me focus on energy as an area of particular concern.

The Durango area is dominated by a monolithic view of key energy issues: one side of controversial issues is always strongly favored, and issues are often treated as settled despite continuing debate in the outside world. To name a few symptoms: impending catastrophe from global warming is widely accepted as a given; “peak oil” – the hypothesis of an imminent decline of oil and gas production – is considered desirable by local activists and taught as established fact by Fort Lewis College; and pollution of all kinds is decried as getting worse all the time. Films are shown locally to support these views. One such film informs how Cuba dealt with “peak oil” caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, lauding the substitution of hand tools, human labor and oxen-driven farm machinery for modern technology. Another warned that impending shortages will lead to the need to grow crops on the front lawn. A conference on regional climate change is held, whose premise is factually wrong. A meeting of “peak oilers” proclaims that experts are swinging over to their camp. Renewable energy is held as completely benign, needing only the extinction of the existing energy infrastructure to usher in a brave new world. A willing press accepts activists’ wild assertions without researching their factual basis.

Amazingly, all this is mediated by activists without any scientific background or business experience in energy. Yet these same activists are portrayed as experts. They are called upon to “educate” students and the population at large. And they gather together to res onate with each other in meetings dominated by wishful thinking and romantic delusions.

This self-reinforcing thought monopoly descends into parochialism because counter views and alternative thought are absent and, in fact, unwelcome. Industry representatives are never invited to speak at meetings and symposia, much less in college courses. Government and private studies by experienced energy experts are nowhere presented and rationally discussed. In short, the local population is not exposed to the vast information contradicting the monolithic view that dominates local activities.

Until now.  

I have arranged to give two free public lectures on several key energy issues later this month. My technical background includes a Ph.D. in physics and a 40-plus-year career in research and technology. My experience includes 25 years in the energy industry, many of them as strategic planner with a large international oil and gas company. For example, my background in theoretical physics and extensive technical experience equip me to deal with the complex scientific issues in the climate-change question. In 1980, I started the only industrial basic research activity on climate change. I have supervised climate scientists doing research in the area. I have followed the area in detail for more than 25 years and understand it well.

It is important that people be well informed and provided with sound information on energy. Accordingly, the lectures draw on the latest scientific research, government data archives, and studies by governmental and private agencies. Despite being readily available to the public, the information to be presented is not provided by media or other popular sources, much less local activists.

Subjects to be covered include: climate change; energy in the 21st century; prospects for continued energy supply; and the role of energy in progressing human quality of life.

The first lecture is part of the Fort Lewis College Life Long Learning seminar series: “Modern Myths: Impending Climate Catastrophe and the Quick Energy Switch,” what the media and academia don’t know, won’t bother to find out, and … wouldn’t tell you anyway – Thurs., Jan. 25, at 7 p.m. Fort Lewis College; Room Noble 130.

The second follows three days later and will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel in Durango: “More Modern Myths: ‘Peak Oil’ and Other Phantoms,” Sun., Jan. 28, at 7 p.m. at the DoubleTree Hotel; Animas Room.

I am confident that interested people will find the lectures challenging and thought-provoking. I offer a special invitation to local area students who are concerned about energy.

– Roger W. Cohen, via e-mail

Bring the troops home

To the Editors,

I am disappointed and dismayed by Mr. Bush’s ignorance in getting the U.S. into the war in Iraq and his ongoing denial about what is truly happening in Iraq. It is disgusting and a disgrace. The billions upon billions of dollars already spent could have done so much for the needs of America: health care, schools, renewable energy ... you name it. And there is the small item of our increasingly monstrous national debt that will take generations to pay for. 

I am adamantly against sending more troops into this mess. I absolutely do not want more taxpayer money spent on this debacle. It is a waste to do so, except of course for Halliburton and company. While Bush created this mess, we cannot be responsible for the hatred and continuing infighting of the Iraqis amongst themselves. Mr. Bush did not consider this before, and it is too late in the game now. The Iraqis must figure this out amogst themselves. We should not have our troops in the middle of a civil war. Mr. Bush has continually ignored advice that might be contrary to his own narrow beliefs. It is time he began to listen to others than only those who tell him what he wants to hear.

And, while the Democrats sit back and criticize the Administration, where is their alternative? I challenge the Democrats to come up with a better and viable plan to exit Iraq and this debacle as soon as possible. Bring our troops home.

– Ed Lehner, Durango

A new “stragedy” for Iraq

Dear Editors,

I propose yet another Iraq “stragedy: ” send Bush and his administration to Iraq to govern that country. He can then leave the U.S. citizenry alone. We would be much better for it.

– Darrel Parmenter, via e-mail