Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
I am writing to express my strong objection to the bailout the depositors of Silicon Valley Bank who had balances over the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's $250,000 insured limit. In 2008, the entire banking industry was bailed out using taxpayer money while little guys like me lost our houses and had our credit ruined for seven years. Now the decision to bail out these rich and entitled techies from their ill-advised banking decision. The argument has been made that this failure might destabilize the banking system. Really? A few regional bank failures destabilize the entire banking system? What has Congress been doing in Washington for the past 15 years to strengthen the banking system? I've also heard that this is free to the taxpayer because it's paid for through a bank-funded pot of money. Do you take us for idiots? Do you think we don't realize that this will be paid for through increased fees from little guys like me?
As a proud Democrat, I am not a fan of the Jan. 6 rioters, but I'm coming to believe that the government that protects only fat cats with money to buy congressional votes needs to be dismantled, so we can start over again. Maybe the resulting chaos will finally hold accountable the rich folks and you politicians who protect them. I am not a violent person, so don't take this as a threat, but I'm becoming less and less inclined to fight against the coup.
Shame on all of you in our federal government who protect these rich folks at the expense of us little guys who are actually holding up this country.
Chris Hartnett, Minneapolis
•••
President Joe Biden, like most politicians, could never be accused of being too honest, so what are we to believe as he suddenly appears white as a ghost seeking our calm confidence in our U.S. banking system? ("Biden insists banking system safe," March 14). Let the good times roll, no? All this coming from the leader of a nation well over $31 trillion in debt, projected to reach $51 trillion in the next 10 years. Investors saw through this charade and sold off stocks, sending bank valuations down as much as 60% in one day. We are fighting off another recession given our current inflation and growing interest rates, further stressing any sense of financial stability. The FDIC has been forced to exceed the norm by going past the $250,000-per-account guarantee to cover all deposits for two failed major banks. We also face more natural disasters, substantial military assistance and threats from our enemies that could soon prove more costly.
My parents lived through the Great Depression, and I, like many of us, lived through the Great Recession, so we understand the ramifications of investor panic, unemployment, supply shortages, widespread poverty and loss. Our federal government should set the example, starting with annual balanced budgets and concrete plans to retire the national debt. A finance system built on a house of cards inspires no more confidence than a failed Ponzi scheme. Confidence must be earned, and we must face the truth and pay the piper — the sooner the better.
Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis
ENERGY
Let the weatherizing begin
I read with interest the recent article about decarbonizing homes in Minneapolis ("Cost of energy upgrade for city homes: $2B over 20 years," March 13). I was encouraged by the prospect of renovating, insulating and weatherizing all the homes in Minneapolis to be comfortable, affordable and carbon-free. I have two suggestions for the city: 1) We should do this the same way the airport noise reduction work was done: regionally, rather than house by house. This would allow for jobs to be unionized and would help the city to meet its annual completion goals more quickly. 2) We should look closely at networked geothermal heat pumps, which were not included in the Center for Energy and Environment study. These would have a higher upfront cost but would allow for much more efficient use of energy, plus significant cost savings for residents over time. Finally, how to pay for it? I think the city should establish a democratically controlled, dedicated climate and equity fund on a polluter-pay principle. Let's get to work!
Evan Mulholland, Minneapolis
•••
The excellent article about electrification draws attention to the important matter of energy conservation by promoting weatherization of existing buildings without mentioning installing high-efficiency heating equipment. Owners of buildings with so-called "legacy equipment" are well advised to consider the return on investment of improving insulation and air-sealing the structure first before purchasing new high-efficiency furnaces and boilers. CEE has correctly identified the real problems in sustainability goals.
There are increasing numbers of contractors interested in weatherization, and as their skills improve, costs will decrease. Continuing analysis and breaking down actual costs so that consumers can understand the finances hopefully will become an objective of the Star Tribune. Reporting on methods, case studies and examples in the business and variety sections will be news people can use.
Bruce Lundeen, Minneapolis
•••
President Joe Biden's reversal on his promise not to allow drilling on public lands is another step toward worsening environmental catastrophes ("Interior OKs drilling project in Alaska," March 14). His offer to protect other areas is an insult, a crude and cruel joke, right after he showed he is untrustworthy. The environment is not a bunch of poker chips to be traded in when politically convenient. This episode painfully shoes how political leaders are unwilling or unable to address global warming head on. The easiest thing to do is to keep the carbon in the ground. That is not happening. What good are electric cars and a relatively green electrical grid when the whole planet is becoming uninhabitable for billions of people, and eventually, all of us?
This is a climate emergency.
John O. Wild, Minneapolis
•••
The article reporting approval of and objections to a solar project on prime farmland in Dodge County ("Extensive solar farm OK'd over protests," March 10) raises a good issue concerning farmland use: the current waste of prime farmland to power automobiles. Ethanol production from corn is a waste of prime farmland. Solar installations can alleviate the problem.
Using U.S. Department of Agriculture and ethanol industry data, ethanol yield from corn in an average annual harvest is about 450 gallons per acre of corn. It takes input energy to produce that ethanol, about two-thirds of the output energy. The net energy gain is about 150 gallons of ethanol. That amount of ethanol can fuel about 3,000 miles of driving in a typical car.
From the Star Tribune article, the 200 megawatt (MW) solar installation uses 1,533 acres, translating to 0.13 MW/acre. Published data for annual Minnesota sun intensity and electrical conversion and transmission losses yield a calculation indicating that, annually per acre, more than 100,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity would be produced and could be used to charge electric vehicles. For a common electric vehicle such as my Chevy Bolt EUV, I can expect an average of 3 miles per kilowatt-hour. The annual energy production from one acre of solar panels could propel my EUV over 300,000 miles — 100 times the distance from corn ethanol in a typical gasoline powered car. We could use 1% of our land currently dedicated to corn to instead power cars with electricity produced with photovoltaics. Corn ethanol wastes prime farmland.
The USDA reports that about 90 million acres of land are put into corn each year in the U.S., and that one-third of the harvest is used to produce ethanol. Giving ethanol production credit for feed byproducts, it is fair to say that a quarter of the energy from our country's corn acreage goes to simply fuel vehicles. That's equivalent to 22,500,000 acres — close to every square inch of Minnesota's agricultural land.
Rather than using huge tracts of prime farmland to propel automobiles, we should put those acres to better use. Farmers could grow crops that improve the soil, sequester carbon or even — are you ready for it? — grow food!
Bruce Odegaard, Crystal
