Readers write: July 23

Think differently about fossil fuels

Regarding “EPA rules will hurt Georgians” (Opinion, July 9), as a grandparent, I am concerned for the well-being of future generations. Coal has kept the lights on and will continue to do so, but new thinking about burning fossil fuels must translate into actions to reduce its use. The climate is warming due to the rise in greenhouse gases. The last three decades have been successively warmer, and 90 percent of the heat is accumulating in the upper oceans. Atmospheric CO2 has increased 40 percent since pre-industrial times. Continued CO2 emissions will exacerbate the atmospheric warming, ocean rise and ocean acidification.

Georgia can and should take a leading role to reduce CO2 emissions. This will assure our citizens of adequate electrical power and provide future generations with hope for a livable climate.


EPA rules based on flawed science

Many AJC letters provide support for EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards issued June 2. The standards are based on flawed science that claim health benefits and stoppage of global warming. EPA equates carbon dioxide with soot that turns snow black. They claim the pollution causes asthma, which is debunked by a 2011 AJC article, “Politics of asthma have outrun the science of the condition,” by Professor R. Harold Brown (Opinion, April 20, 2011).

Numerous examples show no connection of asthma to carbon dioxide. Thousands of years of experimental data show carbon dioxide has an insignificant influence on global warming, and EPA’s flawed climate models for predicting the future are wrong. The rules will force closure of coal-fired power plants with replacement by natural gas, solar and wind. Coal is our most abundant fossil fuel. Its loss, coupled with erratic solar and wind, will cause electricity price increases and a less reliable electricity supply.


Student growth data makes sense

As a former educator, I’m encouraged to read that student growth data has gained more significance in evaluating teachers (“Focus shifts in school ratings,” News, July 21). It makes perfect sense. A teacher gets new students every year. He or she has had no influence or impact on where those students are academically when they walk into that classroom on the first day of school. The teacher’s evaluation should be determined by the growth students made during the time they were that teacher’s students. This is what’s fair and should be measured.