Letters to the Editor: Climate Bill Doesn’t Protect Virginia Workers

Climate Bill Doesn't Protect Virginia Workers
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The news article, "Critics, Backers Debate Effects of Climate Bill on Virginia.," is correct that the Virginia economy will be affected by the climate bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this summer. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) believes the bill includes improvements over past versions, but doesn't protect Virginia workers enough. As the bill moves to the Senate, there is more work to be done to ensure the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and retain high-paying manufacturing jobs in Virginia and across the country.

In Virginia alone, the chemical industry directly employs more than 16,000 people and supports over 38,000 jobs, generating $46 billion in earnings and wages to the Virginia economy. For every chemistry-industry job in Virginia, an additional 2.4 jobs are created within the state. It is critical that the many Virginians employed by the chemical industry have a voice in the climate debate. The ACC has engaged in constructive dialogue about the need for sound climate legislation on behalf of those dedicated chemical-industry employees.

Chemistry products go into 96 percent of U.S. manufactured goods, many of them used for energy efficiency or renewable energy, including solar panels, wind turbines, building insulation, compact fluorescent light bulbs, lithium-ion batteries, and energy-efficient appliances, and the industry employs nearly 850,000 nationwide. Our industry uses natural gas as a key raw material for production -- a use that does not emit greenhouse gases.

ACC urges senators to carefully examine the bill and make changes that help ensure Virginia and U.S. chemical makers can compete globally and keep production and jobs in the United States. Emission allowances for energy-intensive industries such as chemistry must be expanded. We hope the Senate will construct a comprehensive climate and energy policy that includes energy efficiency and conservation, energy diversity, and expanded domestic oil and natural gas production. Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council.


Washington.

College Must Choose New Mascot with Care
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The College of William and Mary is seeking a new mascot. The NCAA deemed its use of the nickname "The Tribe," in concert with a feather, unacceptable. William and Mary deserves a mascot that recognizes its long history and is respectful. This does not rule out a fun and entertaining selection, but those making the final selection should heed the lessons gleaned from the NCAA experience.

The NCAA stated: "The committee believes that while the college's rationale for the use of the nickname and imagery is not inherently hostile or abusive, and the college may not intend to malign Native Americans, the continued use of such Native American references creates an environment over which an institution may not have full control. Fans, opponents, and others can and will exhibit behaviors that indeed are hostile or abusive to Native Americans."

The goal of a mascot is to bring members of the community together. By their nature, mascots are caricatures. This makes selection of a person or an ethnic group problematic. While society is sensitive to the vulnerability of minorities, even the powerful are not immune.

King William III, for whom the college and the City of Williamsburg are both named, was subject to derision in England during his reign due to his Dutch accent and manners.

King William and Queen Mary have been nominated as potential mascots. Others suggest the image of the Burger King as a model.

The college prizes its historical connections with the British monarchy and with the present queen. It should weigh the selection of a mascot carefully. William and Mary has attempted to be inclusive in its considerations, garnering more than 800 suggestions. Considering the college's long and illustrious history, it's a shame the press deemed asparagus as the most noteworthy nomination.

Rob Hale.
Barhamsville.

The NEA and many others reject Obama's notion that charter schools are education reform's silver bullet. Some of Virginia's best school systems have a myriad of innovative schools that are not charter schools. Charters are but one form of innovation in education, but Obama's approach will slight governor's schools, magnet schools, and specialty schools.

If anything is "underwhelming" it is the performance of charter schools across the nation. As Education Week reported, a recent Rand study concluded that "when researchers looked at charter secondary schools, they found few differences in learning gains between students in charters and regular public schools."

The Obama administration is putting great pressure on states to change the charter-granting provisions to increase the number of charter schools. In Virginia this means giving charter-granting authority to the Board of Education and taking the decision away from the local school board. Virginia localities provide the lion's share of the funding for our schools, so this decision should be made on the local level. The Obama administration would be wise to take a broader approach to improving the quality of education in our nation. The NEA is right to stand up on this issue.

Michael Weisbrod.
Richmond.

Insisting that our leaders be accountable to us is neither right nor left. It's American.

President George Bush's decision to spend hundreds of billions in private bailouts woke up some Americans. President Barack Obama's continuation of that spending -- beyond a trillion dollars -- roused others. Government takeover of our private health care in the name of health insurance reform is only the latest bracing cold bath. The sleeping giant is now wide awake.

Broadcast media tend to replay a few loud and rough-around-the-edges encounters, rather than focus on the average peaceful citizen-activists, now fully engaged, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. We of the Richmond Tea Party are encouraged that so many are exercising their First Amendment rights. Civil but assertive, respectful yet energetic civic discourse with our leaders is encouraged at every gathering, rally, and protest.

The Tea Party movement is not about right or left. It refuses to be built around a politician, and works vigorously to defend itself from being co-opted by special interest groups. The Richmond Tea Party is built on principle, and is growing through the passion and interests of the people. Its members -- some for the first time -- believe that together, we can bring about change we can believe in. Sara James, Founder, Richmond Tea Party.


Midlothian.