More legal measures needed to address climate change 

I am writing this letter because of my concern at what is happening in, and to, our natural environment. Having lived here for over 20 years, I see through bird, other animal and plant migrations, that climate change is occurring rapidly. This change affects not only other forms of life, but also us humans. 

Therefore, I find it very distubing that agencies of our government, such as the EPA, are rolling back rules and regulations that are meant to protect us. I notice that more and more of our public lands are being opened for fossil fuel exploration, while the rest of the world, including the oil-rich Middle Eastern states, are committed to renewable energy in order to have a safer, cleaner world for all of us.

Margaret Tatum, Kerrville

Need more info on shooting

Is it not the No. 1 reason that we have a local newspaper; to inform the citizens of Kerrville about news? 

Evidently not. The paper leads with a front-page story about “officer shoots teenager.” Then the next two days nothing from the paper. Only letters to the editor.

Another example in many years I have noticed of not keeping the public abreast of the situation we are all interested in. 

I’ve worked for a major Texas newspaper and I never saw the “let’s keep our mouths shut about this till we know more” attitude that KDT does regularly. Absolutely pitiful coverage.

Heidi McCord, Kerrville

Enough with caricaturing the right, Trump supporters

One of my most disliked expressions often used is “I’m sick and tired of … . “ However, let me discard my dislike to say I’m sick and tired of those who say that President Trump launched his presidential campaign on the premise that Mexicans were rapists and murderers, etc. What he did say was that Mexico “is sending us their rapists and murderers.” He didn’t include the Mexican people in general. 

It is well-known that Mexico is rife with some really bad specimens of humanity who see some greener fields in which to operate (good old U.S.A., easy access, lots of legal protection if caught, etc). So here they come. And it’s hard to get rid of them and/or keep them out because of the extreme liberal ideology running rampant in our country.

Also, I’m sick and tired (there’s that expression again) of Trumpsters, Republicans and conservatives in general being accused of hating immigrants. In spite of adequate info of their wanting only a sensible and controlled immigration policy, the liberal drumbeat goes on. Oh, well; anything to stir up hatred, anger, divisiveness and discord in general. Way to go, Dems!

One last issue: Racism! Wow, now that’s some really good fertile ground to plow. Let’s see. White people — evil. White men — more evil. White Southern Republican men — off the chart! 

Challenge: Google “black slave ownership in America” and you will see that slavery has been common throughout human history across most civilizations. It is our great U.S.A. and Constitution, and of course, the Civil War, that has done so much to put an end to this gross injustice. 

Pray for America and do all you can to keep Trump in office for one more term. Otherwise, you’re going to need to pray harder.

Allie Burton, Ingram

Recommended for you

(8) comments


"while the rest of the world, including the oil-rich Middle Eastern states, are committed to renewable energy in order to have a safer, cleaner world for all of us." Ms Tatum, with all due respect, I don't think you have traveled in China or India. These countries belch pollution in almost unimaginable ways, and I see no indication of significant change. There may be lip service about reform, but nothing more. They can't afford to reduce fossil fuel consumption or generate fossil based energy in cleaner ways, as they are too busy building their military machines, and guess who is in the cross hairs?


Almost every argument on either side forgets that no constitution or other binding act in the US -- nor anywhere else -- forces present citizens to realistically assess whether they might be crippling future generations. Perhaps that is too pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps our children will be the ones to amend the Constitution to force that kind of futuristic thinking to protect (as a new human right of) the unborn.

But I know that not much of that "progressive" thinking can be going on in board rooms today. And it is surely not being talked about in our hapless Federal government.

Yet, it is as real as the obvious fact that there will be future generations: We are (literally, thoughtlessly) doing lasting harm to our world and our children. Our ability to do harm to our children and grandchildren has increased exponentially in my lifetime. Think about it.

And while we are thinking out of the box, China is spending less than 1/4 of what we do on their military. And with a population that is 3.5+ times ours. Thus, they are spending on military 1/14 of what we spend per capita. Unbelievably, even with a larger army (> 2 million compared to our 1.35 million) they are 1/5 of our per capita men (and women) under arms. Before you begin feeling paranoid, look back on history and consider who has chosen to arm ourselves to be the world's dominant army. (And arms merchants to the world.) Was that really all about a Cold war, or were some of those decisions made by board members of Lockheed, Raytheon, etc? Or am I just imagining that the revolving door would result in "collusion?" (But it's not a crime!) Again, the crime is unthinking -- unthinking damage to poor children in the US not educated; and damage to governments toppled to benefit our "national (military-industrial) interests." Eisenhower warned us about it in 1959, as he was leaving office. We ignored his warnings at our peril.

Mary Lou Shelton

You write some powerful posts, Patrick. Gene

Mary Lou Shelton

conservative, in terms of overall emissions, china is 1, we are 2 and India is 3rd. in terms fo emissions per capita, we are first, china is 47th and India is 158th. by abandoning the Paris accord, money that was going to help nations like India reduce emissions. was not forthcoming. so they could not afford to. china has been working hard to reduce their emissions and continue to do so. on the other hand, we are busy removing efforts to reduce emissions, creating an incentive for other nations to abandon theirs. the writer is quite correct and you are quite wrong. we threw away the chance to do something meaningful due to our very short sighted president. you have made essentially the same post in the past and you were factually rebutted. but hey, why let facts get in the way? gene


Gene, you are correct, in terms of China, USA and India, however your 'per capita' position though accurate, doesn't tell the entire story. China produced in 2017 (most recent data available) 9838.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions, while the US produced 4997.50 million metric tons of carbon emissions roughly half. These two countries produce nearly 40% of the worlds carbon emissions.

You note to 'conservative' that China has been working hard to reduce their emissions and continue to do so, however that may be the 'party' line so to speak, China's carbon emissions have increased from 9038.7 to 9838.8 between 2015 and 2017.

You also note that pulling out of the Paris agreement placed a financial onus on countries like India. Perhaps, however taxing US citizens whilst other countries like China, Russia, India, Pakistan continue to sit at the table and make promises they have so far failed to produce. doesn't make financial sense given those countries having little to no incentive to corporate.

Additionally pulling out of the agreement saved thousands of American jobs in the manufacturing, energy sectors and removed a primary obstacle to continued economic growth for the US.

Even if every country met it's commitments (a big if) considering China and Russia have both under-reported their carbon emissions, there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges, again wasting American tax payer monies.

The climate negotiation leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green climate fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020, as you state the goal of the fund would be to help finance some of the worlds poorer countries with mitigation programs, however countries who would have received those US tax dollars are either corrupt or have poor records of transparency.

Transparency International lists the following China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, Egypt, Thailand and the Philippines. Are listed between 25 and 43 in terms of transparency. Tax payers are right to be concerned.

What value is there in funding nations who have no incentive to follow our lead, when in fact each of those nations are increasing their production of carbon emissions?

A final note; Since 2007 when the US carbon emissions peaked we've reduced overall production 12.2 %, lest you give all credit to Obama, Trumps administration has seen a continued decline in carbon emissions since his election and pulling out of the Paris agreement, and additional 2.7%. (EPA 10.17.18)

While I understand you dislike this President, it seems you may be attune to facts, and you have been factually rebutted. enjoy.

Mary Lou Shelton

IZ, I was waiting for you to post some more rebuttable material you copied, but since you didn't, I will point this out: Your post is the making" the perfect the enemy of the good." in other words, since the bill is not perfect, we better do nothing. its the same argument that people against any form of gun legislation use. somebody might have their rights infringed upon, so we better do nothing.

surely you can see how transparent this approach is to anybody that really thinks about it. Gene

Mary Lou Shelton

Ms Burton, Perhaps you should have googled the history of slavery in the world. The first efforts to outlaw slavery occurred in 539 BC. The United States was the last so called civilized nation to abolish slavery. Far from being leaders as you state, we were laggards, far behind all of Europe, South America and even Russia.

The modern day republican party does not need any help from democrats as they do a fine job of characterizing themselves. gene

Mary Lou Shelton

iz, i understand your statements and agree with part of them. I have read them before, and I have read rebuttals. of course the us tax payer was going to send money to other countries, just as the tax payers from other wealthy nations were going to do. the American tax payer sends money all over all the time. that is no logical argument.

per capita emissions are crucially important. small changes here, since we emit so much per person, can lead to large changes over all.

yes we have reduced emissions, but not as much as we would have. and trump is very busy undoing Obama era regulations that helped reduce them.

china has reduced the growth in emissions, not their overall emissions. that was the goal of the accord, to reduce growth where they could. in time, those nations could shift to other energy methods and show a reduction overall.

jobs lost in one industry are jobs gained in another.

and if I could remember more of your statements, I could go on, but you see the point. for every statement you make there is a counter statement. in other words, there are two or more sides to every situation.

it was a good and lengthy try though. gene

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.