Readers write for June 22, 2010

For those portrayed in "Losing our lakes" (June 20) who feel they are entitled to do what they want with their property, I would like to invite them to a lake covered with green algae growth, devoid of any clear water, and poisonous enough to kill their dogs. With their attitude, along with the castastrophe facing our state's migratory bird population from the oil spill, I wonder how much longer we will be able to enjoy our natural water resources. With a priority on simply protecting one's investment and doing what we want while disregarding our water resources, it will only be a matter of time before it's too late.

As a grower of native plants for wetland and lakeshore restoration, it amazes me the disregard we have for our natural resources.

JILL DANIELSON, WATERTOWN, MINN.

• • •

Lake home construction variances point out a fundamental market problem with pollution; the individual who generates the pollution does not pay for its cost. Instead, the cost of diminished resources, such as poorer fishing, is paid for by the neighbors. Cleanup is passed onto the future taxpayer, effectively subsidizing the polluter.

JON URBAN, Minneapolis

• • •

PATRICIA LINDGREN, SUN CITY, AZ

• • •

Follow the money: These large homes with manufactured beaches are cash cows for counties, as they make city folks pay taxes for numerous services they are never able to take advantage of.

ROGER BUCK, Bloomington

Since President Richard Nixon launched Project Independence with its goal of producing an "unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years," we've expected technology to end our dependence on foreign oil.

The oil industry pursues our deep ocean deposits with faith in 400-ton blowout preventers to cap undersea gushers. Polluting coal's dominance for electric power is to be handled by unproven carbon capture technology. Congress and state legislatures like Minnesota's pass "tough" renewable energy standards based on faith in technological pipe dreams.

Unfortunately the laws of nature and physics are not so easily modified. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has scrapped impractical hydrogen car research. Corn-based ethanol has a role as a 5 percent gasoline additive, providing higher octane and a cleaner burn. Beyond that it is probably a net energy loss. Fertilizing more than 40 million prime acres for biofuel crops sends chemicals to the Mississippi, creating dead zones in the Delta and Gulf of Mexico. Biodiesel will reach just 6 percent of its 2010 Congressional mandate.

No one is stepping up for hard choices such as conservation and a big gas tax to fund energy efficient public transit. More expensive driving would get us on board for transit, and may lead to rail systems like those in Europe and Japan.

ROLF E. WESTGARD, ST. PAUL

As a society, we are able to make human beings orbit the Earth and live on a space station for months. We are able to build weapons capable of wiping out the Earth's population in the blink of an eye. We are able to build gorgeous new baseball parks within two years. We are able to find deep-water oil reserves and tap them.

JASON GABBERT, APPLE VALLEY

Let's see: Women make 72 cents for every $1 earned by men. And Steve Horner is championing eliminating ladies' night at all bars? ("Lone crusader brought on ladies' nights complaints," June 19) And the Minnesota Department of Human Rights is going after these bars?

What am I missing here?

• • •

So what if Steve Horner is no Rosa Parks? He's right that ladies' nights are illegal, gender-based, economic discrimination. And for being right about the law, he's subjected to not-so-subtle ridicule in a front page story.

If so, who decides what's monumental? Should complaints about the Confederate flag or Indian names for sports teams be ignored because some people think they're no big deal?

The story also tells us that Horner is "white, balding [and] bespectacled." When did race or physical appearance become relevant to the legitimacy of a lawsuit?

And so what if "there is a mixed feeling" in the Human Rights Department: Does the department only enforce the law when it wants to?

Laugh at him if you like, but Horner is doing everyone a favor by reminding us that if we truly support laws that protect our individual freedoms, we need to enforce those laws even if we don't like their consequences.