Herald letter writers discuss Richland recall, climate and WA state’s pay-per-mile idea | Opinion

3 Richland board members must go

Ethics: Knowing the difference between what one has a right to do and doing the right thing.

While technically it is allowable under current law, the ethics of Richland School Board directors Byrd, Williams and Bird voting to have taxpayers pay their personal legal fees for the firestorm they created is simply unconscionable.

Their request to have their constituents foot the bill for their misconduct is a resounding slap across the face of every single taxpayer in Richland and West Richland.

The illegal actions of these elected officials were not in “good faith” or in “the best interest of children.” Byrd, Williams and Bird had a politically motivated agenda to defy the statewide mask mandate. They made a conscious decision to break the law as a means to an end to achieve that goal. Period. No amount of rationalization or obfuscation changes this fact.

The recall isn’t about ideology; it’s about following the law and playing by the rules.

Byrd, Williams and Bird knowingly and willfully violated the law and the public trust. It is necessary and appropriate for the recall to proceed. They’ve demonstrated they are unfit to serve and should be removed from their elected positions as soon as possible.

Jeff Marzyck, Richland

We have the tech to retain climate

We already have available the solutions we need to preserve the climate when our civilization developed for the last 10,000 years.

Fossil fuels can be replaced with hydrogen produced by photolysis of water, methane recovered from manure and food waste, and electricity produced by hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors, wind turbines, solar panels, waves, tides and geothermal.

When electricity cannot be produced, we’ll have energy stored in batteries, hydrogen and pumped hydroelectric. Transportation can be powered by batteries, electrical lines, hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel. Homes and buildings can be heated with electric heat pumps. Steel and concrete can be produced using hydrogen.

Energy use can be reduced with more insulation and fewer leaks in buildings, with shorter commutes due to mixed-use zoning and higher population density in cities, and with safer streets for pedestrians and bicyclists. Diets can shift to low-methane beef or less beef. Soil carbon on farms can be enriched with no-till planting, biochar and cover crops. Forests can be protected from slash and burn. Trees can be selectively harvested to store carbon in buildings, leaving the remaining trees more sun and water.

Co-benefits of this transformation are cleaner air, healthier soil, healthier forests and healthier people.

Steven Ghan, Richland

Tax miles driven, but plan carefully

I see our Legislature is thinking about replacing our 6th-highest tax (in nation) on gasoline with a tax based on mileage driven. On the surface, that seems to make some sense since it would tax electric vehicles that use no gasoline.

But I see problems. I agree that electric vehicles need to be taxed, but I would look for a simpler solution. In order to be effective, every car would have to report its mileage to the government, which is the essence of Big Brother. And many cars don’t even have GPS or any wireless connection. To be workable, every car would have be equipped with a transponder as they are in Singapore. But even if we accept the intrusion and cost of monitoring, a tax intended to pay for construction, maintenance and repair of roads should take allowance for the fact that heavy vehicles wear the road more than lighter ones. In other countries, vehicle taxes are based on weight and engine size — a formula that could easily be applied to mileage taxes.

Kenneth Ames, Pasco