FRACKING DEBATE
Article provoked, but vision was shortsighted
Greg Breining's commentary on hydraulic fracturing disappointed me ("The ickiness and stickiness of fracking," Jan. 13). Yes, natural gas produces less greenhouse pollution than does coal, but at what cost to the environment and human health? The fracking industry is exempted from the federal Safe Water Drinking Act, so much of its environmental damage is hidden. Conservation and alternative forms of energy need to gain greater prominence in our outlook, but this won't happen until we commit to weaning ourselves and our nation from dependence on fossil fuels.
VAL CUNNINGHAM, St. Paul
• • •
Can natural gas production provide the bridge to renewable energy production, as Breining suggests? We know that carbon dioxide production from natural gas is half that of coal-burning. Breining argues that we need a new generation of renewable technology, but that takes time. Also, being "gifted" with abundant cheap gas makes it hard for renewables to find traction in a competitive market. Americans are used to paying for garbage handlers, so why not place a fee on fossil-fuel use that pollutes? This would provide the capital for research and development of renewables, and put us on a fast track to alternative energy production.
MIKE MENDEL, EDINA
* * *
GOVERNMENT DEBT
Plenty of blame to go around in Washington
The commentary by Rudy Boschwitz, Tim Penny and Martin Olav Sabo thoughtfully addressed one of the big issues of the day ("Debt is a big deal," Jan. 15). As America struggles to solve its budget problems, it hasn't grasped the extent to which Tea Party supporters want to control how much we spend and how we spend it. Their effort to "starve the beast" has contributed significantly to the disparity of income, produced an abundance of unaffordable health care and degraded the country's educational infrastructure. How can we allow that to happen and, at the same time, expect to remain a great country?
JOHN MINGE, PERHAM, MINN.