The real stats on police-related violence
Re “A full accounting of people killed by police – at last” (Editorial, Dec. 21): Regarding the editorial, The Bee cites that 2,931 people were killed during the arrest process from 2003 to 2009. What the editorial fails to mention is that 1,145 police officers died in the line of duty during that same time frame.
Given the 320 million people in America, the number of people killed while being arrested was one person for every 100,000 people. With roughly 1 million people in law enforcement protecting us, the number of police officers killed was 120 for every 100,000 of law enforcement.
Randall Hoffman, Sacramento
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee
More accurate numbers in police deaths
It will indeed be useful to get a complete account of the number of suspects killed by police, but how about a complete accounting of the number of police killed in the line of duty?
I am guessing that the numbers will tell a very sad story for our police.
Bill White, Sacramento
Climate on steroids
Re “Human-caused climate change: The answer is in” (Forum, Dec. 21): Peter Gleick’s article helps clear up the most persistent public misunderstanding of the global warming issue.
As he suggests, asking “Does climate change cause weather disasters?” is like asking “Do steroids cause home runs?” Of course, home runs were celebrated before and after the steroid epidemic, but performance-enhancing drugs unquestionably influenced the frequency and power of home runs. Fans may have enjoyed seeing booming homers, but the practice penalized honest players and added an unsustainable level of risk to the game.
In climate change, as in baseball, the cost of doing nothing about the problem is higher than the cost of action. Let’s stop allowing our air and water to be a free dumping ground for chemical and combustion waste.
The best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon fee paid by fossil fuel producers and fully rebated to households.
Michael Segor, San Luis Obispo
Droughts will worsen in a hotter world
The Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick nailed the science connecting human-caused global warming to California’s drought. Although droughts happen naturally, global warming makes them more intense. The record heat we’ve experienced has increased soil dryness, evaporation from reservoirs and water demand, and it’s shrunk the Sierra snowpack. Precipitation is low but not at unprecedented levels. However, a recent study found the 2012–14 drought was the worst California has seen in over 1,200 years because of the effects of that record heat.
As humans cause more global warming, this problem will only get worse. Scientific research is clear that the hotter the planet gets, the more intense droughts will be and the longer they’ll last. Curbing global warming is very important for California. Cutting carbon pollution can be done cheaply, but the impacts of failing to do so will be very expensive.
Dana Nuccitelli, West Sacramento
The man who cried ‘global warming’
I would like to edit Peter Gleick’s column on global warming for him. “Global warming is causing our California drought. Ah, dang, it’s raining hard outside. Shoot, I hope The Bee will still run my column anyway.”
I don’t consider myself an extreme conservative, but I am getting tired of the masses that have not just swallowed the global warming tripe but that have gulped it. If it is record high temperatures, record low temperatures, record drought, record rainfall, record snowfall, big hurricane season, no hurricane season, average temperature or average rainfall, they have claimed it all as proof of man-made climate change.
As of now, I am in the camp of “We are in a coming ice age.” This summer, when the temperature in Sacramento is 110 degrees, I am claiming it as proof positive that we are in our coming ice age.
Mickey Mann, Roseville
Why Congress should lift the embargo on Cuba
Re “New approach on Cuba holds much promise” (Forum, Dec. 21): The 54-year-old embargo should be lifted against Cuba. The Cuban government no longer poses a military threat to us. The embargo made sense during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. When the Soviets pulled out in 1991, Cuba no longer remained a viable threat to us. The Europeans and Canada have been trading with Cuba for the last 30 years, and we should be involved in that process also.
We have granted favorable nation trade status to China even though they are an autocratic communist nation. Why not Cuba?
James Darrell Reeves, Carmichael