Incandescent lightbulbs were on their way to extinction — as more people were buying long-lasting energy-efficient LEDs — until Donald Trump declared LEDs to be “no good.” Federal rules required incandescent bulbs to be off retailers’ shelves by 2020 and replaced by bulbs that would save customers money and energy. That transition didn’t happen.
And it’s only the personal part of Trump’s war on energy-efficient appliances. In its aftermath, the Biden administration is working to reinstate efficiency regulations that Trump weakened. It’s an unsung but important way to cut energy use and fight climate change. There’s a huge backlog of long-overdue standards affecting dozens of household appliances that threaten the government’s ability to slash greenhouse gas emissions. The Washington Post reported that at the end of 2021, 33 energy efficiency standards for home appliances were overdue for updates and that up to 30 more will come due by the end of 2024.
Thankfully, the Biden administration is trying to do just that. Hopefully, they will succeed. According to a 2020 report by the energy conservation group American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, by 2050 new efficiency standards could prevent up to 3 gigatons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere, the rough equivalent of closing between 13 and 25 coal-fired power plants, greatly reducing emissions that fuel global warming. And the report noted that these upgrades could also save American households about $100 annually on their utility bills by the end of this decade.
Since the Senate is split 50-50 and seems unable to agree on new climate rules, we can be thankful that the administration is doing what it can to make these emissions cuts without legislation.
Steve Gehlert
West Newbury
The Los Angeles Times editorial published on March 9 titled “Deception blocks action on climate” reminded me of the 2020 vice presidential debate between former Vice President Mike Pence and Vice President Kamala Harris. During the back and forth, Pence more than once said that Harris was entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts.
When the subject of climate change came up, Pence said there were “no more hurricanes now than there were 100 years ago.” He stated this as a simple fact, not an opinion. Well, let’s see. I believe one hundred years ago would make it 1920. In that year there were five tropical cyclones, four of which became hurricanes.
None of these storms grew into a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher).
In addition, all of these storms occurred in the single month of September. In 2020, on the other hand, there were 30 named tropical storms — 14 became hurricanes and seven became major hurricanes. The first arrived in May and the last in November, a span of seven months. What was Pence thinking? Was he being willfully deceptive or just willfully ignorant?
Henry Billings
Lebanon
Regarding Peter Thompson’s letter advocating Dartmouth’s use of “Frat Row” for dorm construction (“‘Frat Row’ could present opportunity for Dartmouth,” March 9) there are two roadblocks to this otherwise worthwhile idea.
The first is that the existing properties on Webster Ave are not likely owned by the college. In the 1960s when Peter and I attended Dartmouth, they were owned by the corporations of the various fraternities, and I doubt that has changed.
Therefore, enough contiguous corporations would have to sell in order to accommodate a new dorm complex.
Second, Peter suggests that the college use “some architectural imagination to blend the old with the new.” One glimpse at most buildings put up by Dartmouth in the last several years will show that such design sense, like buildable land, has been in painfully short supply and this, too, is not apt to change.
Jim Lustenader
Hanover