True mainstream green

Dear Editors,

In regards to the article about "Mainstreaming Green" it seems we are (almost) ready to talk about how La Plata County should look in the near future. Almost ready. While it's true that many great local builders are providing a greener product, let's be real about what the next step really is. Homes and buildings that are super insulated, use low toxicity paint, and install Energy Star appliances are a great first step in reducing our environmental impacts. Sadly, they are not enough or new ideas, and yet we tend to tout them as some extraordinary leaps forward. Reducing our homes' energy consumption is great, but what about producing some of our energy instead of buying it from costly and dirty sources?

We should all applaud buildings like Mercury Payment Systems, which produces a large percentage of the power it consumes. I wholeheartedly disagree with owners who say putting up this kind of investment doesn't make sense because the payoff might be 10 years. That seems a good rate of return in today's market, and the fact that they bought their electricity at a fixed cost for the life of the building will more than pay for itself. With the amount of sun we have here in La Plata County why aren't more buildings mandated to produce at least 50 percent of their electricity or heat from the sun? This is not a big request. That would be moving "green" toward the mainstream!

Most homes and businesses in our area have unused roof space that should be supplying heat or electricity to the building. It's time to start seeing solar panels as something of functional beauty. We put up with looking at power lines, cell towers, propane tanks, gas wells, etc. So why is it so hard to look at a wind-turbine or solar panel and either ignore it or see it as something that is necessary and functional? Whether for solar thermal heating or electricity, panels can be installed in an aesthetically pleasing manner. It is time to stop buying the myths that panels are ugly or that the technology isn't here yet. We have great technology, great local and federal rebates (check out fourcore.org), and the resources to make solar heating and electricity the biggest supplier of our energy, and it is time to use it. Time to stop digging our energy from the ground and start pulling it from the sun. Stop paying big companies for your energy! Invest in yourselves and own your power! Demand that buildings produce power instead of drain it from the energy grid. Builders, push your customers to do this, show them why

they need to do this. Learn from Detroit's mistake - give consumers something new and exciting and they will buy it. A little extra investment goes a long way. Take the next step and produce some clean power at home. This is a win/win situation for customers, builders, our economy and environment!

- Derek Wadsworth, Durango

Chicken out in Durango

Dear Editors:

City Council is debating whether or not to allow chickens within city limits. The current ban on chickens is unreasonable. I can see why someone would find a rooster unpleasant, but chickens make fairly agreeable neighbors. If you compare chickens to some dogs and some college students, you will find that chickens have far less potential for being a nuisance. Chickens won't bark all night and day, they won't have belligerent parties, they don't bite, and if properly maintained, chickens do not smell. I have heard that some people are concerned with the risk of bird flu, but that does not seem to be a problem in Denver and other urban areas where chickens are permitted within city limits. Here are some reasons to allow chickens within city limits: they can increase our local food production, therefore reducing our carbon footprint; raising chickens is a valuable learning experience for children and adults; the price of one dozen organic eggs is $5.50, which is not cheap, and no store in town carries local eggs or chickens regularly. I have been urging City Council to legalize chickens in Durango, and I encourage any one who agrees with me to speak up.

- Sincerely, Noah Richstone, Durango

Food for thought

Dear Editors,

As a hopefully progressive thinker and a supporter of sustainability on a whole, it's hard to argue that we shouldn't be producing our own food within the community. A friend once said that every tree in town should be producing fruit for us to eat, and it's tough to disagree with that.

There's a flip-side to everything, of course. Within Durango, we are already attracting wild animals, including deer, bears and mountain lions into residential areas with gardens and lush lawns, water features, compost, unused fruit trees and berry bushes, unrestrained pets, birdfeeders and trash.

I know it's very well-intentioned, but do we really want to add chickens to that mix?

Bear Smart Durango and others have been working hard in an opposite direction: reducing attractants that lure wildlife into neighborhoods, potentially putting residents at risk and setting wildlife up for fatal measures, being hit by vehicles, capture and relocation often ending in death and euthanization. Last year, many residents were upset when the Colorado Division of Wildlife had to euthanize two mountain lions in town, when real blame can be traced to these lions setting up shop because they were obviously finding "urban" foods available, such as pets. If foods are not available, animals move on.

Unlike in the county, due to safety concerns, city code is unlikely to be amended to allow for the use of electric fencing in protecting agricultural interests within city limits and adding yet one more layer of food attractants available for wild animals should be given more thought. Perhaps we are overdue in having a community discussion on whether certain sustainability ideas can be done safely in Durango. Safe for both residents and our wild animal neighbors. Food for thought.

- Bryan Peterson, Bear Smart Durango

Rules of the coop

Dear Editors,

The arguments in opposition to chickens in Durango are easy to solve. Supporters realize that the rules need not be complicated. I googled "chickens in the city" and found pages of information. It would take a short time to develop guidelines allowing some home dwellers to keep several chickens within Durango city limits.

Cities and towns all over the country allow backyard chicken coops (housing hens NOT roosters) within their limits. Among them are Brooklyn, New York City, Chicago, Miami, Topeka, Atlanta, Denver, Des Moines, San Francisco, Albuquerque and I could continue listing many additional examples.

During World War II in a suburb of Washington, D.C. my family grew a "Victory Garden" in the front yard of our Maryland home and housed chickens in a coop out back on the patio. Our country is again at war, and in addition we are in economic turmoil as well as facing global warming that threatens our environment. We need to get back to basics. Raising some of our food is a start. Sustainability is being advocated throughout our community, and raising a few chickens and growing some of the food we will serve at our own tables is a way to work with the natural world toward bringing balance back to planet earth.

- Mary Alice Hearn, Durango

Climate for controversy

Dear Editors,

Three years of promoting debate on the global warming question and informing people on the state of the science have revealed that those who are seriously concerned about the issue divide into two groups.

In the first group are those who are sincerely worried about whether humanity will cause a major climate problem. They do not want to leave a greatly damaged planet to their children. They hear differing views put forth by different bodies and individuals: the UN, Al Gore, Greenpeace and others on the advocacy side; Lord Christopher Moncton, Dr. Fred Singer, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change and others on the skeptical side. Such people want to hear about possible solutions to the problem, inasmuch as there may be a problem, and those solutions should cost as little as possible in economic, political and social terms. I was speaking to this group of people in my Jan. 4 OpEd in the Herald. I offered a point of view on how to think about the risk of loading the atmosphere with much more carbon dioxide, even though the science does not support a substantial human contribution to 20th century warming. In the short space available, I indicated how the right technology could address future risks at reasonable cost, while avoiding economically damaging government restrictions and interventions on a global scale.

The second group consists of, well, political propagandists. They care little about the concerns of the first group, and they are certainly not interested in solutions. They are motivated by a political agenda hidden under the umbrella of hysterical warnings of impending catastrophe. They aim to impose their ideas on how all of us should live. They are immune to new facts. They pray for the earth to warm so as to expedite their agenda. In this way, they are like the priests of Baal in the Book of Kings, who called for fire to come down from heaven as they jumped around the altar on Mt. Carmel, shrieking and cutting their breasts to bleed for their idol. The Hebrew prophet Elijah made himself very unpopular with the politicians of the day by challenging the idol to bring forth the heat. And like those ancient priests, the modern day political propagandists shout even louder when the climate refuses to obey the dictums of the computer models.

I will now speak to this second group. I am simply going to play back the rules of engagement that you use as tactics in place of rational discussion. These tactics project very clearly who you are and what you want.

Rule 1. Always appeal to authority instead of to fact. For example, refer to the 51 people who actually wrote the IPCC summary report as "mainstream," but never mention the 31,000+ scientists worldwide who signed a petition http: //www.oism.org/pproject/ stating, among other things, that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Rule 2. Refer to an "enormous body of data, theory and modeling" that allegedly supports a human role in warming, but be careful not to provide a specific shred of evidence to support your position.

Rule 3. Be sure to label all contradictory facts as "cherry picking" or "misinformation," but never, ever say exactly what is wrong or misleading. Avoid unpleasantries such as the fact that 2008 in the contiguous U.S. was simply a typical year temperature-wise, relative to the 20th century average; there was no "global warming" in 2008.

Rule 4. Use ad hominem attacks wherever possible to distract attention from the weakness of your case.

Rule 5. Remember at all times: rage is preferable to reason.

Rule 6. Seek to instill fear, especially when there is no cause for it.

Rule 7. Never consider or think about what is being said by others. In fact, it is better not to listen or read others' viewpoints. Simply react to it and never respond directly to it.

Rule 8. Paint opponents as "dissenters," grudgingly acknowledge the right to dissent, but then try to intimidate the media when it provides a dissenting view.

The rest of us may look at you and recall the mock query by the great economist John Maynard Keynes, "If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

- Roger W. Cohen, Durango

An hour well spent

Dear Durango,

You can help a child gain self-confidence and do better in school with just one hour per week. Become a participating member of our community; become a mentor! Call Study Connections at 247-3720.

- Sincerely, Wyatt P. Regan, Durango

A Democratic challenge

Dear Editors,

The inauguration of Barack Obama is certainly an exciting and historic event, but I am concerned that those patting themselves on the back for voting for him as well as those whiners who belong to an upper income bracket may be assuming that their democratic responsibilities ended Nov. 4. I would contend that our responsibilities have only begun. We can be assured that Obama will be under constant pressure from the military industrial complex that has hijacked our democracy to continue its agenda of pursuing money over life. In the face of this, we cannot afford to sit idly by and think that Obama is going to be able to follow through with all of his campaign promises.

The Democrats say "Yes we did!," I beg to differ. When we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan, when we can all afford health care, when Palestinian children are no longer being slaughtered by U.S.-made weapons, and when the rest of the world doesn't believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace, then we can say "Yes we did!." I implore everyone on all sides to not let Obama forget his promises and maybe we can even get him to make some new ones. While Bush only listened to his puppet masters, we can hope that Obama will listen to us.

- Thank you, Carsten Almskaar, via e-mail