Readers write (June 26): CEO salaries, energy and sustainability, fracking

I read with great interest the article on the new pay wall for CEOs ("Executive compensation 2011 report," June 19). It was striking to see Stephen Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, at the head of the list with nearly $49 million. His compensation was nearly double the next person on the list, Gregg Steinhafel of Target Corp., who was paid $25 million.

Our budget woes center on health care. This is the unspoken part of the state budget debate. We pay nearly double what other industrialized countries pay, and health care costs continue to rise faster than inflation and much faster than our individual salaries.

In the face of our tough economic times, the Legislature has deemed it necessary to cut schools, parks, cities and, of course, health care. Legislators are adamant in their stance against any increase in taxes, even temporary ones, for the top 2 percent of individuals in the state.

We're being told to make do with less so the health care industry can continue to thrive and so Hemsley can continue to "earn" his hefty salary and bonuses. You would think he could spare a few thousand to help us through this difficult financial time.

I don't see how this fits anyone's concept of shared sacrifice. It seems to me that it is the middle and lower classes that are doing all of the sacrificing.

MICHAEL THOMSEN, ST. PAUL

* * *

However, solar panels can also be distributed widely on the rooftops of homes and businesses to provide direct energy without all the power lines.

Wind farms are an economic benefit for rural communities, and you can still farm around the turbines. When solar and wind are up and running, there is no need to extract more fuel.

Bryce claimed that natural gas and nuclear power have smaller footprints. Not really. Natural gas extraction requires a lot of land. Moreover, the method of hydraulic fracturing has come into question as a risk to groundwater.

Nuclear energy continues to have unacceptable risks, as shown by the accident in Fukushima, Japan. The United States hasn't come up with a plan to safely dispose of the waste that is geologically or politically acceptable.

Extracting and burning coal is the most environmentally damaging, due to mountain removal in Appalachia, mercury contamination and heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Conservation and efficiency are the most cost-effective ways to reduce overall energy demand.

JOE FOSS, MOUNDS VIEW

• • •

Bryce's column was full of inaccuracies that must be corrected. Given that the Manhattan Institute where he works is funded by the Koch brothers, who have a financial interest in the continued use of dirty coal, we should not be surprised that the article was slanted.

He suggested that the land used for renewable energy is unavailable for any other use. Perhaps he should visit southwestern Minnesota, where he could see wind farms, people, cows and crops peacefully coexisting.

The wind turbines use less than 0.5 percent of the land, giving farmers a valuable second crop and maximizing land use. Solar arrays can be placed on rooftops or over parking lots to harvest energy without more land.

In other words, wind energy is 250 percent more efficient than coal in return on energy invested.

WANDA DAVIES, ST. PAUL

• • •

The headline to Greg Breining's commentary was redundant ("Is sustainability sustainable?" June 12). The article contained several valid comments about the concept of sustainability, but the author wandered from point to point. His conclusion lacked meaning.

The scientific community agrees that humanity's impact on the environment and our means of producing energy by burning fossil fuels is adversely affecting the quality of life on the planet.

JOE KNAEBLE, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *

In reading that silica sand is the new gold, I was pleased to hear that citizens in Wisconsin and Minnesota are fighting energy and mining companies to keep hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," out of this region ("Straddling the Mississippi, silica sand is the new gold," June 11).

Minnesota and Wisconsin are known for their pristine landscapes. Fracking and large-scale mining would destroy these states' natural beauty.

Beyond the concerns of direct impact on the natural environment, fracking presents immense health risks for humans beyond just the inhalation of fine silica particles.

The water used to fracture these underground formations is a slurry of far more than just water. Although it is unregulated by state or federal authorities, research shows it contains hundreds of carcinogenic chemical compounds.

Mining and fracking may be an economic boon for some small towns. Rather than placing further health and environmental problems on struggling communities, why not create this same boon with clean alternatives that pose no health threat to citizens.

Minnesota and Wisconsin can and should do better than this harmful process.