Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change. Every word that is put into the public eye that discounts scientific data that shows how man has hurt the environment teaches more people that what they are doing does not degrade the planet. The science is clear: people have created harm and people are the only ones who can do anything to reverse it.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change, starting with Newsday.

The Los Angeles Times recently announced that it will no longer publish letters to the editor that deny the basic reality of climate change. It's time for the Oakland Tribune, and papers across the country, to follow suit. For too long the media has perpetuated false balance around climate change. Letters pages should be a place for reasoned debate, not conspiracy theories. As LA Times Letters Editor Paul Thornton explained: "Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page ... Saying 'there's no sign humans have caused climate change' is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy."

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change. Florida insurers, among the most conservative of business people in America, KNOW that climate change is real and are charging high rates because our state is in serious danger of coastal flooding due to the complex factors of climate change.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change. The scientific community has accepted the reality of man made climate change and the dire consequences for all.

Newspapers need to stop publishing letters that deny climate change.

Rep. Mindy Fee is pushing a bill that will gut protections for endangered species in Pennsylvania – taking the decision about which species are endangered away from scientists and handing it directly to politicians. Her bill has the support of the oil, gas, and coal industry lobbyists. If those guys are on your side, it’s pretty clear that this bill is bad news for endangered species. Fee’s bill, HB 1576, is opposed by the scientists on the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Many fisherman and hunters have also expressed strong opposition. In spite of this strong, evidence based opposition, HB 1576 already sailed though its first committee and is headed for the floor. We must stop HB 1576 from gutting the endangered species act before it gets any further.

SCE seeks to construct a new Moorpark-Newbury 66 kV sub-transmission line in a right-of-way (ROW) that has served for decades exclusively as a 220 kV transmission corridor (providing power from Ormond Beach to the Moorpark substation). An existing Moorpark-Newbury 66 kV sub-transmission line runs parallel to it through a 2-mile wide green belt, approximately 1800 feet to the west. We are writing to protest this plan and request that any enhancement of the Moorpark-Newbury line be contained within the existing sub-transmission corridor. This may entail some additional expense to enhance the east-west run from the substation. However, it is reasonable and prudent in order to keep the potential hazards and burden of the new sub-transmission lines from compounding the burden already born by homeowners adjacent the existing 220 kV facilities. SCE admits it has studied no alternative site. Background: The ROW in question abuts the residentially zoned communities of Santa Rosa Valley and Moorpark (to its east). It also forms the eastern boundary of a 2-mile wide swath of Open Space (O-S) and Agricultural (A-E) zoning. (The existing 66 kV ROW lies entirely within this swath.) Discussion: The proposed project addresses no immediate need, but rather an anticipated possible future overload of the existing 66 kV line. According to SCE, the existing line has never lost power. Even in the “worst case” scenario projected by SCE (i.e., heat storm peak loading), “de-energized distribution” is admittedly a mere possibility. Further, this “need” assessment was made in 2005, based on the 2003-04 housing boom and prior to our dire economic crisis. It also predated the explosion of private solar electrical systems. Reassessment may reveal that projected growth and “need” have not occurred. Thus, at best, this is a preventative, possibly unnecessary, “rainy day” measure. The project is not entitled to Exemption G status. Constructing a sub-transmission power line facility in the shadow of a 220 kV transmission line creates hazards (see below) not contemplated in the granting of exemption under Section III.B.1. Rather, for public and environmental protection, this proposal should undergo the scrutiny required for permits under General Order 131-D, Section III.B. Several environmental concerns mitigate in favor of relocating the project to the existing 66 kV easement approximately 1800 feet west of the proposed site: 1. Brush Fire Hazard The easement traverses an extremely fire sensitive rural residential region. As evidence by last week’s wind-driven Porter Ranch fire, it is long past time to get serious about this hazard and its proximity to populated areas. Each year, our annual “red flag” wind season downs power lines, some of which ignite brush fires. Last year, the season began in September and did not relent until late-Spring 2008, with winds sometimes gusting at near-hurricane force. As reported in the LA Times, 10/18/08, Section A, page 20, electrical lines ignited four of the State’s 20 worst fires. The loss of life and property attributable to electrically ignited brush fires is staggering. The proposed project moves this ignition point 40 feet nearer to populated residential areas; whereas enhancing the existing Moorpark-Newbury-Pharmacy would bury it deep within the buffer of the 2-mile wide green belt. 2. Earthquake Hazard SCE has explained that, because earthquakes are considered “unpredictable,” it has no earthquake structural fortification requirements. SCE proposes to erect new TSPs in Section 2 of the project right on top of the Simi-Santa Rosa fault line. It is a very active fault line. The 220 kV towers have withstood numerous earthquakes. On one occasion, the force caused the 220 kV lines to slap together, creating sparks. Given their proposed proximity, the new TSPs could topple into the 220 kV wires, or perhaps worse, onto our homes and properties. 3. Compound EMF Exposure Another potential hazard is EMF exposure. While acknowledging its inability to verify a relationship between EMFs and negative health consequences, the CPUC affirmed its cautious policy of prudent avoidance of EMF exposure (D.06-01-042). In doing so, it implicitly acknowledged the existence of scientific evidence correlating illness with EMF exposure. Prudence mitigates in favor of locating the new 66 kV lines in the existing sub-transmission line deep within the green belt. This would avoid compounding EMF exposure at the 220 kV line, which flanks so many residential properties. 4. Other Environmental Concerns The ancient native chaparral that blankets our hilltop to the east of the 150’ tower is sensitive habitat for several endangered species of birds as well as native plants. By locating the new TSP within the 100’ buffer that currently separates the towers from our property lines, SCE will create a brush clearing burden over our hillside, jeopardizing this important habitat. (This is probably true of any number of neighboring properties along the easement.) Additionally, the new TSP at the dead-end of Presilla Road will require the removal of a “Heritage Tree” (protected by the Ventura County Tree Protection Ordinance). This tree has a 12-½ foot trunk girth and is approximately 80 feet tall. This tree also visually softens the “industrial” impact of the existing transmission facilities. While it does not hide the towers, its position in the foreground serves as visual mitigation for all who travel Presilla Road. There may be a number of such protected trees doomed by this proposal. Pubic Hearing: A public hearing may not be necessary if the CPUC honors this request for relocation of the project to the existing 66 kV easement within the green belt. In the event this request is denied, we hereby lodge our protest to the project, request an evidentiary hearing and an Environmental Impact Report, as well as compliance with the permit process of General Order 131-D, Section III.B.