To the editor:

Last week’s letters agree we should spend $93 trillion (money we don’t have, but could print) to reduce the US carbon footprint. We have already reduced our emissions by 12 percent from 2005 levels mostly thanks to use of natural gas produced by fracking (opposed by environmentalists). No other country in the world has accomplished the same although many in the EU have spent trillions attempting it. The environmentalists despise nuclear power, yet it is totally CO2 free. The environmentalists want wind, yet totally ignore the millions of birds killed by the speeding vanes of the windmills. Solar farms litter the landscape depriving more appropriate uses for the land. And, when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow we must have conventional power plants at a moments notice to provide power.

The USA represents less than 15 percent of total CO2 emissions in the world. If we follow the Green New Deal, what will the rest of the world do? China (30 percent) - nothing, India (9 percent) – nothing, EU (9 percent) - ?, All others – most likely little to no reduction. 

So the US will spend $93T to reduce anticipated worldwide temperature increase of 1.1 – 5.4 degrees centigrade worldwide by 2100. If we are responsible for 15 percent, then that means we will reduce that increase by .17 to .81 degrees C.

Almost forgot, no more gas guzzling cars, trucks, boats, cruise ships, and airplanes.

News flash: NASA Proves Undersea Volcanos Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming (Aug. 8, 2018). Oops! Doesn’t suit “settled science”!

I’m for conservation, nuclear power, natural gas and technology to improve our atmosphere, but we have to be realistic and not self-destructive.

Ned Barton

Barrington