LETTERS: Clean energy worth cost to wildlife

To the editor:

In reading Deanna R. Miller’s letter to the editor, I just wanted to add my thoughts on the subject (“Not-so-green energy,” Sept. 21 Review-Journal). I, too, am mindful of the well-being of all species on this planet, but my opinion differs slightly with Ms. Miller’s.

Fossil fuel companies do not pay, in any way, for the damage they do to our planet. Every byproduct of burning or extracting fossil fuels ends up contaminating our atmosphere, our water supply and our land. While generating massive profits, the fossil fuel industry pays no penalty nor spends any additional monies to clean up their emissions, largely a benefit of owning the half of our federal government that routinely shields the industry.

On the other hand, we have these massive solar generating plants and wind-powered generators that do not add any negative byproducts to our world, while their use actually eliminates carbon emissions otherwise associated with the quantity of energy they create. The only downside I’ve seen is the impact these green energy plants have on the animals that live near the plant locations. While I’m saddened that these green energy plants cause distress and even death to some of the animals that live near them, I feel the sacrifice is a small one.

So there will be fewer birds, turtles, rabbits, snakes and ground squirrels on the site itself, and maybe even within a five-mile range. But, because of the existence of the green energy plant, those species outside of that perimeter will not have their environment degraded or polluted.

The need for energy will never go away. The unfortunate demise of wildlife that venture too close to these plants is a small price to pay for the clean energy created.

RICK REYNOLDS

LAS VEGAS

Emergency care

To the editor:

Regarding Jennifer Robison’s article on the Affordable Care Act (“Solve emergency first, then resolve money, doctor says,” Sept. 21 Review-Journal), I’m an octogenarian living with my wife in a retirement community in Las Vegas. We have a daughter who was the medical director, for many years, of a large hospital emergency room in another state, until she decided to enter private practice. We also have a son who is a primary care physician in another state, and I am a longtime friend of Dr. Len Kreisler, whom Ms. Robison interviewed for her story.

I am very well aware of the challenges physicians face economically, ethically and in allotting time for their own families and personal lives.

The article was interesting in that Dr. Howard Baron did not address the theme of Dr. Kreisler’s statement; namely, the moral and legal obligation of physicians and hospitals to respond to emergency care with proper follow-up.

Fortunately, my wife and I have insurance coverage, and we have been blessed with appropriate response by qualified physicians. Unfortunately, we have many U.S. citizens who for a variety of reasons do not have the luxury of access to timely and appropriate medical care. We can do better as a society in the 21st century.

BERNARD SILVER

LAS VEGAS

UNLV football

To the editor:

Regarding the UNLV football team’s struggles, coach Bobby Hauck told the Review-Journal’s Mark Anderson, “I’d say the head coach has to do a better job” (“Numbers unfriendly to Rebels,” Sept. 23 Review-Journal). Really! And how much time is the coach given to do a better job?

With the win-loss record that Mr. Hauck has at UNLV (14-41), most coaches would be gone. How do you sell your team to a high school player with that record? Maybe Mr. Hauck should become a politician, able to get re-elected year after year, without really earning his keep. We do have politicians like that in this state.

But back to football. This is an embarrassment for our great city. Bring someone in who can turn this team around. I’m sure there is someone out there who would accept the challenge of making the team a winner.

CHARLES BERBERIAN

LAS VEGAS