EDITOR: The front page article (“More electric vehicles needed,” Thursday) noted that EV drivers save significantly on fuel costs. That’s great news. Even better, they also save on maintenance costs because of the simpler EV drive train and less wear on brakes due to regenerative braking. If they’re charging their cars using their own solar panels, they also enjoy perfectly predictable energy costs instead of the sometimes wild swings in gas prices.
Enticing technology and falling prices are compelling market forces driving EV adoption. A revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend, like that proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, would further increase the speed of adoption by imposing a steadily increasing fee on carbon. Fossil fuels have enjoyed a hidden subsidy because the real health and environmental costs of burning carbon have been shifted to the public and are not borne by producers or consumers of them. A fee on fossil fuels would spur adoption of currently available cleaner technologies and spur innovation for new approaches. The “revenue neutral” part of the plan would return proceeds to citizens to offset increased prices. A low carbon footprint would yield a net gain.
Violating his oath
EDITOR: I may be late in putting out this letter, but I believe it must be sent. On July 28, at a Suffolk Community College in Brentwood, New York, President Donald Trump publicly encouraged police officers to violate the Fourth, Eighth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, which grant suspects the right to be free from the excessive force while in official custody.
Police departments across America responded to the president: They already have a standard in place to follow, strict rules and procedures in handling prisoners while being arrested. Violations of these rules are treated with the utmost seriousness.
But I believe something else wasn’t mentioned. By taking such an anti-Constitutional position, Trump has violated his own oath of office. President Trump swore on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thus, by encouraging police officers to criminally violate the Constitution by way of police brutality, he violated that oath.
EDITOR: During the campaign, candidate Donald Trump promised that he would replace Obamacare with a plan that covered everyone, with better coverage, at lower cost — and he wouldn’t cut Medicare/Medicaid. And it would be “beautiful.”
He was quite explicit about this, which implies that he had a plan. Isn’t it about time that President Trump gives a copy of his plan to Congress, since they can’t seem to figure it out on their own? Or are we to think the president was just blowing smoke?
CARL H. INGLIN
Too many pads?
EDITOR: Regarding the editorial in Thursday’s Press Democrat dealing with football injuries (“Football must change to protect players”), It has longed seemed to me that a significant factor in the injuries are the helmets and pads themselves. If the players did not have the massive helmets, they might be less inclined to use their heads as a “weapon” and might limit the violence of the hits. Even reducing the helmets to the old leather helmets would be a significant help.
As an example, I suggest that the sport of rugby has significant contact also, but the rate of serious injuries is much less. The fans, of course, would have to come to terms with the fact that the violence on the field would decrease. As stated in the editorial, the fans may be the biggest resistance to change.