Regarding the renewables legislation (“Hager digs in to keep bill alive,” May 1): A spokesperson for the Americans for Prosperity said that current law is a “bad law” and “a horrible vote for Republicans.” (A good vote for Democrats?) A spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform refers to the current law as “misguided policy.”
I might feel better if their arguments were based on something other than short-term economics and politics. The current law is to give a new industry an opportunity to reduce our dependence on industries that have a greater adverse impact on climate than renewables. Bad law and misguided policy could be ascribed to those who look for short-term gains versus longtime societal benefits.
As was said in the stratospheric ozone depletion arguments, the time has come where the risk of inaction far exceeds the risk of action. In climate change, these risks are far greater than in stratospheric ozone depletion where the world took action.
One could list the advantages versus disadvantages of climate change action. Then even the most ardent opponents of adverse climate change being caused by human activities would find it extremely hard to justify the risk of inaction being worth the potential consequences.
Sometimes free enterprise needs some direction.
William J. Rhodes