Readers write for Monday, May 3

The Gulf Coast oil spill exposes the delusional folly of the "drill, baby, drill" crowd, as well as that of others who dismiss the concerns of environmentalists ("Worse than Valdez?", April 30). This faction always paints environmentalists and those pushing to put our resources toward renewable energy as standing in the way of progress. But this disaster highlights the fragility of these vast ecosystems, not to mention all of the businesses that rely on the viability of the area. The accident proves that faith in this outmoded technology is unwarranted.

Now the federal government must be called upon to pour already stretched resources into solving this problem. To people who claim that fossil fuels are inexpensive compared with energy sources such as solar, I would ask: Are the emergency services that our tax dollars pay for, not to mention the lost revenue from suffering businesses, being factored into the equation?

PETER MURPHY, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

"We'll take help from anyone," BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said.

According to BP's first-quarter 2010 results, the company earned $6.08 billion, up from $2.56 billion a year ago. On a replacement profit basis -- which excludes special items and the effects of energy prices on inventories -- the company would have earned $5.65 billion, $900 million higher than analysts expected. Revenue increased more than 50 percent, to $74.42 billion, from the same quarter last year.

All these billions of dollars, and yet the military has to step in and help. Maybe some of the profits should go toward more research on eliminating or fixing oil spills.

JOHN JOACHIM, TAYLORS FALLS

• • •

I clearly remember oil spill disasters like the current one in the Gulf of Mexico. I clearly remember coal mine disasters like the recent one in West Virginia. And I clearly remember nuclear plant disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Yet somehow I can't come up with a single solar panel or wind energy disaster.

We've had numerous wake-up calls since the 1970s. President Jimmy Carter valiantly tried to help us turn the corner toward conservation and renewable energy. President Ronald Reagan immediately turned his back on it. And, because of a lack of true commitment since those days, we're still light years away from letting go of antiquated and dangerous energy sources. Do President Obama and the current Congress have the will to do the right thing? Our national security, as well as the future of planet earth, depend on it.

• • •

Now that the consequence of "drill, baby, drill" is washing over the shellfish beds in the Gulf of Mexico and toward the Mississippi Delta, will Minnesota continue on a path to expand that other "safe" energy source, nuclear power?

A radioactive spill would not be stopped by absorbent sponges and containment buoys.

J. TODD EMBURY, RAMSEY

• • •

ED BOROWIEC, ANGORA, MINN.

I am amazed how Katherine Kersten can twist science and pontificate political judgment ("Sustainability: The latest indoctrination," Opinion Exchange, April 25). She doesn't seem to realize that earth comprises both economy and ecology as one connected system (linguistically, they have the same root). As the ecology goes, so goes the economy. We have now run a 40-year experiment, and the results are in. The environment continues to go downhill, to the point that we face environmental risks of catastrophic proportions if we do not act.

The system of modern capitalism as it operates will grow to such complexity that we will not able to cope with environmental challenges. We are simply consuming natural and social capital. Therefore, we need to reexamine everything people do: human behavior, land use, eating habits, education and other issues. This means that economic and social models must include the principle of sufficiency.

ROMAN KANIVETSKY, MINNEAPOLIS

Your editorial arguing for a change in the way charter schools in Minnesota can buy or build school facilities missed the point ("Clarify key rules for charter schools," April 30). Laws are already in place -- enacted during last year's legislative session as part of a comprehensive charter school reform package -- that allow charter schools to renovate, purchase or construct a new school building provided certain conditions are met.

Since the first charter schools opened, they've been central to school-change advancements that also include postsecondary enrollment options and College in the Schools. Charter school enrollment is at an all-time high, reflecting parents' hunger for public school choices that fit their child's individual needs. The common-sense laws already in place ensure that qualified charter schools can continue to adapt and grow to better meet the needs of the students they serve.

Charter schools and other public school options are here to stay. The common-sense laws already in place will help them do that by responsibly expanding excellent options and by providing assurance that our investment in education is used wisely.

STATE REP. mindy greiling,