NV Energy argues that solar panels that people are putting on their roofs will cost the rest of the electrical users tens of millions of dollars. It is true that the cost of maintaining the grid — and eventually increasing its capacity if we ever produce more electricity than Nevadans can use — is being spread among fewer people when someone puts solar panels on his roof. But there is a savings to society that is not being considered.
If we do not reduce consumption of fossil fuels by about 70 percent, the costs of climate change will easily be in the trillions of dollars. Five-hundred year and 1,000-year storms that are occurring every year are a result of climate change. Increased flooding and 1,000-year droughts are the result of climate change. Rising sea levels are the result of climate change. If all the land ice melts, we will lose most of Florida and about 50 miles of coastline from Texas to New Jersey.
When I produce electricity from solar panels on my roof, that is energy not being produced by fossil fuels. The cost of upgrading our electrical grid system is significantly less than the cost of climate change. We should be doing everything possible to encourage the production of renewable energy and we should allow anyone who wants net metering to have it.
We need to start considering the total cost to society of our government policies.
James L. Barker
In a brief editorial on Aug. 24, the Review-Journal castigates the Army and U.S. Department of Defense for doing phony accounting on huge amounts of expenditures. So far, so good.
But, then the paper announces that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have advocated for increasing military spending. And what does the editorial say?
It says, “OK.”
Really? Why in the world would the paper approve of further defense spending in light of the military’s budget practices?
If this had been the Veterans Administration, the Social Security Administration or any part of the federal government other than the military, the paper would have howled with outrage.
Review-Journal, your conservative slip is showing.
Richard L. Strickland
North Las Vegas
Lie and deceive
Each and every day we see more and more examples of the amoral activities of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Whether it is lying about her emails and servers or her “pay to play” turnstile erected at the U.S. State Department, it is obvious that Mrs. Clinton recognizes no distinction between the truth and lies. The only criteria for her public statements are whether they advance her political career.
Yet, the more disgusting aspect of this campaign is the even more obvious fact that the Democratic Party has become the party of lies.
Barack Obama unleashed a literal fire hose of lies while running in 2008. Mr. Obama got his “signature” legislation passed using a boatload of lies. Administration figures Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Hillary lied about the Benghazi attack by blaming it on a video — as did the president himself three weeks later.
Eric Holder lied about indicting reporters; Ben Rhodes about the Iran negotiations.
And what is the response of the Democratic Party writ large? We don’t care. That’s right, lying has become second nature and a daily procedure to further their agenda. If a lie must be told to move the ball forward, a lie shall be told. No problem.
Is that acceptable to the masses on the left? Absolutely. Look at the support for the congenital liar on the left, Hillary Clinton.
It is a sad and sordid situation when an entire political party — and its millions of supporters — just accept lying and deception as part of routine day-to-day operations.