Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Do homework before
heading to Texas
Re. “Californians are fleeing state income tax,” Page 6, July 21:
I keep reading about Californians moving to Texas because of high costs, but before they do I would advise them to do more research on the financial differences between states.
More than likely if they move to Texas they will experience a significant reduction in pay; the minimum wage in Texas is $7.25 but in California, it is moving to $15.00. The median household income for two in 2021 was $71,287 in Texas and $83,435 in California.
Another factor for homeowners to consider is that homes are taxed at an optimum rate of 1.8% in Texas versus 0.76% in California.
I moved from Texas to California in 2011 and received a 45% increase in pay for basically the same job responsibilities. People can move if they want, but I would recommend that they check the data before making their decision.
Jerry Marsh
Rio Vista
Keep unsafe CCUS
out of California
Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) is getting lots of attention from Sacramento and Washington D.C. as a “tool” to help fight extreme weather and climate change.
While significant questions remain about the efficacy, safety and cost of CCUS, there is one application that requires no debate. Pumping captured CO2 into oil wells to extract oil that would not be otherwise recoverable makes no sense. This process called CCUS for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has been shown to emit about four times more carbon than it captures. It is also not economically sustainable without taxpayer subsidies. CCUS for EOR is not currently used in California, and Sen. Monique Limon’s bill SB 1314, now in the Assembly, would ensure that CCUS could not be used in California for EOR.
CCUS for EOR is a false “climate solution,” extremely unsafe for frontline communities, and costs taxpayers. Urge your Assemblymember to support SB 1314
Valerie Ventre-Hutton
Walnut Creek
Solar is not the green
solution we thought
Re. “Byproduct of the state’s solar industry? Deluge of toxic waste,” Page A1, July 15:
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Recent news articles reveal that the cost and consequences of recycling and/or disposing of solar electric panels at the end of their useful lives are huge and that such recycling or disposal results in the release of significant quantities of dangerous elements that can permeate the environment, endangering human beings and virtually all living things.
It does not appear that this issue was addressed in any manner when solar energy was being touted as the way to save planet Earth. To the “Climate Mafia” solar electricity generation felt like a good idea, so let’s jump in whole hog and go all out for it. Why worry about something that isn’t going to happen for 25 years? We can deal with solar panel disposal later.
Well, “later” is now.
William Crisick
Walnut Creek
Supreme Court rulings
promote overpopulation
Thank you for publishing the thoughtful piece by the economist and professor Kathryn Anne Edwards about the change of the status of women after the recent Supreme Court ruling (“‘Right to life’ threatens women’s livelihoods — and their lives,” Page A7, July 19).
What she did not mention is that these six justices with Roman Catholic Church backgrounds are all promoting overpopulation. In 1930, the U.S. population was 123 million, in the year 2000 it was 281 million, and the census reported the 2020 population was 331 million. In 2050, one wonders where will we find a parking place.
Dirk Neyhart
Berkeley
After Roe, time
to resurrect, sign ERA
I appreciate the steps President Biden has taken to date to protect abortion rights, now that Roe has been overturned, but I do not feel that he has gone far enough. What we need is equality and that means signing the Equal Rights Amendment.
The ERA has been ratified by 38 states. All that is required now is to have the National Archive finalize the amendment. All the archives need is the president’s go-ahead, and I urge him to do so now.
If the president feels that Congress needs to recognize the amendment’s ratification first, the House – the body that originally passed the amendment in 1972 – would do so if he pushed them to do so.
We need the ERA. It needs to become the law of the land.
Lorin Salem
Alameda
Source: www.mercurynews.com