There’s no free lunch

To the editor:

All I hear from the Review-Journal opinion staff is whining about Democrats wanting to raise taxes, both on the local and state side as well as at the federal level.

What about the opposite side? Should we continue to “fund” a war overseas to the tune of billions (soon to exceed $1 trillion) without actually raising the money to pay for it? Isn’t that borrowing money from future generations to pay for present expenditures? And isn’t all of that money outside the “regular” budget for the military, which is higher now than it was during the Cold War?

Ah, well. At least no increased taxes. Let our grandchildren pay.

Locally, we short-sighted voters approved an increase in the sales tax to fund more police. Great. More police lead to more arrests. More arrests lead to the need for more prosecutors, judges and public defenders. They also lead to more convictions, resulting in the need for more jail cells and more prison guards.

But the increase in the sales tax only paid for the police. The other expenses were completely ignored, and now we are releasing prisoners due to lack of facilities to house them.

Ah, well. At least no increased taxes.

The Review-Journal seems aware that the state needs nearly $4 billion worth of road repairs/improvements, yet doesn’t seem to want to raise taxes to pay for them.

Ah, well. At least no increased taxes.

I cited only a few examples. Your editorial staff (and the Republicans, by the way) never seems interested in paying for these things with tax dollars. Yet I never read anything about how you propose to pay for the war, the increased staff and facilities, the needed repairs and improvements to our infrastructure, or any other government services that people take for granted.

Here’s a clue: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

But at least there are no increased taxes.

David Adams

LAS VEGAS

Warming up

To the editor:

In his Nov. 11 column “Who cares about cause? Something must be done!” Vin Suprynowicz correctly argues that causation is better evidence than correlation. One should not discount correlations entirely, however, as they are typically our first indications of true relationships.

More importantly, Mr. Suprynowicz seems unaware that our understanding of global warming is based on much more than correlations.

For example, scientists in Canada have studied a population of polar bears near Hudson Bay for decades. The decline of this population is correlated with rising temperatures in the Arctic. But the scientists have also conclusively demonstrated the cause: Earlier ice break-ups in the bay leave less time for hunting ringed seal pups.

During a critical time period in the spring, between seal births and the ice break-up in the bay, the bears must capture as many seal pups as possible. As this period declines, so does the average fecundity of the populations. Thousands of studies have found similar effects of warming temperatures on ecosystems.

While there are winners and losers in every story, the balance is decidedly negative for those who believe that we are the stewards of the Earth.

But what about the root cause of today’s warming?

The heat-trapping abilities of greenhouse gases are observable, established phenomena. The combustion of fossil fuels, increased ranching, and global deforestation inarguably contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Most people are aware (thanks to the work of some of the same climate scientists who are sounding the current warning) that the Earth has gone through Ice Ages and warm periods in the past. These shifts were certainly driven by natural causes, since human activities were minimal or non-existent.

The past climate shifts happened, but this does not mean that the current warming is therefore entirely natural. That so many people continue to believe so seems mainly due to a deeply held belief that the Earth’s climate is somehow immune to human influence (God’s last natural refuge, so to speak). This is the same type of thinking that led to the witch hunts and “pioneering scientist hunts” that Mr. Suprynowicz chose to highlight in his column.

In the serious debate about what to do about the problem, Mr. Suprynowicz does nothing to help by comparing the concerns of well-meaning people to the superstitions of pre-Enlightenment authorities, or by quoting the likes of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe.

william fouts

LAS VEGAS

No flush

To the editor:

Again Las Vegas residents are told of a looming water crisis. So researchers and activists suggest rate increases, rebate programs and conservation all in order to save water. That’s a great idea.

I think we should all make sacrifices so multimillionaire developers can build thousands more condos and homes and retire to their property in upper New York. Would a 45-second shower make them happy? Maybe if I have my family flush once a day that would satisfy them?

Not once in Henry Brean’s article (“Incentives listed for saving water,” Nov. 14) did you see the word “overdevelopment” when it came to the water crisis. And in 10 years when Lake Mead looks like a pond, and you’re losing your hair from drinking the water, you can rest assured you did your part in the looming water crisis.

As for me and my family, we’re going to do our part to conserve Las Vegas water. We’re moving back to Chicago as soon as possible.

Curt Robinson

LAS VEGAS