Letters to the editor: Climate, grocery tax, Trump

Climate

In a Jan. 27 editorial, the Statesman claimed wildfires in Australia show my Jan. 23 presentation about climate change in Idaho in the House Resources Committee was inaccurate. A proper look at the evidence, however, validates the evidence I presented that shows humans are not creating a climate crisis in Idaho or elsewhere.

The Statesman editorial summarized the extent of the Australian wildfires and then leaped to the conclusion that climate change must be to blame. However, drought and wildfires have always occurred, even before global warming. In fact, Australia Bureau of Meteorology data show there has been a recent long-term increase in Australian precipitation, droughts were much more severe 100 years ago, the past two decades have been wetter than normal in Australia, and this year’s drought is merely an inevitable exception to the general rule of increasing annual precipitation.

The Statesman additionally asserted that declining Idaho snowpack is reducing water availability for Idaho crops. Yes, there has been a modest decline in Idaho snowpack, yet there has also been a more important increase in Idaho annual precipitation, especially during the driest months of the year. The net result is a more beneficial climate for growing crops in Idaho, as shown by a steady increase in Idaho crop yields and new records being set on a regular basis.

Finally, the Statesman asserted that warming temperatures are creating a longer wildfire season. True, an earlier end to winter snow increases the number of days in which wildfires theoretically can occur. However, as I showed in my presentation, the long-term increase in Idaho precipitation has reduced the severity of drought in the state and has reduced the climate factors that may cause wildfires.

Objective evidence shows modest warming is bringing net benefits to Idaho, despite misleading assertions to the contrary.

James Taylor, director, Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy, The Heartland Institute

Trump

“Article 2” of the U.S. Constitution, as intended by the framers, could never have anticipated a president with the emotional and intellectual maturity of a child.

Tom Menten, McCall

Impeachment

The ultimate irony! Investigating your political opponent!

Let us reason together. The president is accused of asking the Ukraine president to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. The claim is that it is a crime for the president, who is running for re-election, to ask for a criminal investigation of his potential political opponent.

Therefore, based on this premise, it is a crime for one political candidate to ask for an investigation into criminal activity of that candidate’s potential political opponent.

To apply that premise fairly, the political opponents of the President, including several senators running for the Democrat nomination for President, and virtually all members of the House of Representatives who are up for election with President Trump effectively “ running against them” on the ballot in November, are investigating potential criminal activity of their potential political opponent.

Conclusion — these senators, and all of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives, are guilty of the same crime they are accusing President Trump of. They are having a criminal investigation of their political opponent!

The ultimate irony — trying to unseat President Trump by committing the same “crime” they are using against the president!

Paul Lorenzen, Nampa

Grocery tax

Tax advantage for wealthy? Removing the sales tax on food favors those who dine on steak and lobster more than those who subsist on rice and beans. It would be better to increase the food tax credit to help those in need.

Richard Reimann, Boise