Another letter was published in the ADN correctly identifying climate change as adversely affecting Alaska, but not presenting any solutions. Here are some considerations.
The United States produces 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Alaska produces 0.7% of that, for a 0.1% share of the world’s greenhouse gases. Fifty-two percent of our greenhouse gases come from the production of oil and gas. Stopping all oil/gas production would cut $1.25 billion from state revenues and eliminate 110,000 jobs — industry, government, services and retail.
Another 12% comes from international commercial traffic through Anchorage Ted Stevens InternationalAirport. Eliminating that would cut another 15,000 jobs, directly and indirectly.
With no gas production, we would have to turn to green energy sources. But 50,000 trout and salmon killed the Susitna River project. Tidal energy would be good, especially in Cook Inlet, but those currents are used by migratory salmon and beluga whales. Wind is available, except that the best locations are used by migratory birds. Solar is available — I have it on my roof — but it produces little in the winter during the short days and overcast skies. Also, converting to solar would require the world to triple copper production and increase rare-earth production 10 times — places like Pebble mine.
The net effect of doing these would reduce the worst-case global temperature rise in 2100 from eight degrees Fahrenheit to 7.995 degrees Fahrenheit. The effect on climate change would be negligible.
Is Alaska ready to do its part?
— Ed Leach
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.