Science backs need for energy regulations

To the Editor:

I have read a letter in the Bedford papers in which the writer disputes the science of climate change and warns of excessive control by the government. I disagree.

According to the writer, “A historical record replete with erroneous predictions, biased analysis

(“climate-gate”), predictive models based on highly variable parameters and records of limited duration should make reasonable people at least somewhat skeptical of the accuracy of claims of the extent of human effects on climate.” The writer didn’t offer any specific data.

I trust the “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists” who agree that “climate-

warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” ( There is a small minority of scientists who disagree, some of whom are funded by the petroleum industry.

The writer says “current alternative sources are obviously less economical or they would not require subsidies and favorable regulations.” According to, “Fossil fuels have received far greater government support, over a much longer period of time, than renewables have.”

The writer states that “Proposed solutions imply complete control of the environment and the economy through force of government.” I doubt that such “complete control,” is possible in our democracy. I do think that some support and regulation is warranted by the Constitution. Among the reasons for establishing the Constitution, listed in its preamble, is “to … promote the general welfare.” To the extent that “general welfare” includes a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, I believe that the government is mandated to regulate the energy industry for this purpose.

Jane Boyer