Carter’s insight needed in the White House
Jimmy Carter was one of the few U.S. presidents with a technical background. He had a Bachelor of Science degree from the Naval Academy and also had extensive post-graduate training in nuclear propulsion when he joined the Navy’s nuclear submarine program. This gave him the ability to understand issues like the energy crisis that dominated the world in the late 1970s. At that time world events caused the price of oil to skyrocket, resulting in a huge economic impact on the U.S.
Carter responded by proposing ways for the country to drastically reduce oil consumption, including using more coal at power plants instead of oil. He also set a radical goal for the country to get 20% of its power from renewable energy by the year 2000.
He encouraged people to increase the energy efficiency of their homes with better insulation, to set their thermostats to a lower setting in the winter and to obey the speed limit of 55 mph. To show his own commitment to reduced energy usage he added solar panels to the roof of the White House to heat domestic water and a woodburning stove in his living quarters.
Carter showed his leadership skills and technical understanding in developing a plan to resolve the energy crisis, which he presented to the American public.
It’s a shame that he isn’t our leader now during the greatest challenge the world has ever faced — global warming. Our president-elect has no technical background, nor even curiosity, to even vaguely understand the issue. Hence, we can expect no leadership, only hindrance, for the next four years from the United States in helping to solve this monumental issue.
Richard Phillips, Denver
“High-profit and low-nutrition”
Re: “Weight-loss drugs are great, but real food still matters,” Dec. 27 commentary
The key sentence in Emily Armistead’s op-ed on weight loss and nutrition is: “Governments and food manufacturers must take proactive measures to reshape these [nutritional] environments …” – except for the inclusion of food manufacturers. That’s like expecting cigarette manufacturers to have contributed to the successful government campaign to reduce smoking.
Food consumers did not demand the nutritional degradation of our national diet; they succumbed to the pervasive advertising of high-profit and low-nutrition (and convenience) fast foods, beverages, and snacks.
Some people will cry “Nanny State,” but only our government can enable positive change by “encouraging people to eat more plant-based whole foods and meat alternatives,” thereby addressing the Constitution’s imperative to “promote the general welfare.”
David Wolf, Lakewood
Do we need changes to election laws?
Re: “Republican majorities to try to change voting laws,” Dec. 27 news story
Reading The Post story explaining President-elect Donald Trump pushing his MAGA members to change election laws when he gets back into office, I noticed quite a pre-election versus post-election response. The roar of fraud complaints by the GOP and then complete silence about election fraud after he was elected was clear.
I think the silence was more pronounced than the previous barrage about fraud before the results. So which is it? Do our laws allow fraud, or are the laws fair because Trump won the election? Statistics show that election fraud is rare, so why do we need more repression, ID laws, reducing voting boxes, and limiting counting if the election was fine for Trump?
Sue Cole, Centennial
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.