Suing Big Tobacco

In reference to your editorial “Letting litterbug smokers off the hook”. I agree that cigarette butt litter is a problem that should be addressed. The problem with a public education campaign, aside from use of public tax dollars, is that people who do not respect their corporeal environment are unlike to respect the natural environment and any type of education campaign would fall on deaf ears.

One solution would be to simply ban cigarette filters, both integral and aftermarket (in 1975, beverage can pull-tops were replaced with the Sta-Tab design due to litter). That may convince more people to give up smoking and discourage startup.

Another solution would be to require cigarettes to be 100% biodegradable. The statement in your editorial “If the city is right, every manufacturer and distributor of littered products — paper receipts, plastic bags, glass bottles, aluminum cans and many others — would suddenly face civil and even criminal liability because consumers sometimes improperly discard them” is simply misguided and lacks simple logic.

That logic is pull tops and cigarette butts are small items that are more apt to simply be dropped on the ground due to their comparatively small size.

Brett Liggett

Colorado Springs

Hamstringing our economy

The story about Denver suing big tobacco for cigarette butts littering the streets, prompted me to read the story twice because I couldn’t believe that the story was real.

I’m not a fan of big tobacco but it seems that for state government, including Denver, accountability is focused only on hurting any big business. This is an issue that people had better take notice of regarding what is being done to the business climate in our state. The more businesses are sued the more they will move out thus hamstringing our economy. So, what is next? Suing fast food companies for their food wrappers littering our streets? The answer is not to bash businesses; the answer is to hold those that litter accountable. Where I came from, littering of any sort, when caught, was an automatic $1k fine. Now, that is a deterrent. It’s a head-scratcher to me why there is such an anti-business climate in Colorado.

Thom Hill
Colorado Springs

Back at square one

The Aug. 7 article in the Gazette from Colorado Politics for ballot Initiative No. 177 to protect citizens’ rights of continuing economic use of natural gas – this represents an essential effort deserving of our full support!

The Guest Opinion by Kit Pfeiffer of the Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies is a comprehensive assessment of our Colorado citizens’ historic and beneficial use of natural gas, throughout our statehood and well into the future!

Residential heating at the point-of-use in our homes with “high temperature” fuel sources (natural gas, propane, wood-burning stoves, etc.) provides reliable heat throughout the year and during extreme winter weather conditions. The alternative of electrical heating is a “low temperature” fuel source that is much more inefficient, expensive and complex.

This involves utility power plants (burning fossil fuels), networked “renewable” wind and solar generation, point-of-use generators, electric resistance heaters, heat pumps, batteries, etc. Future AI data centers and the aging electrical power generation and distribution systems will only add to the overall demand and cost of electricity. We can only hope these ever-evolving technologies will increase efficiency and reduce costs over time.
It is unfortunate that environmental advocates, elected officials, regulatory agencies and many of our fellow citizens advocate a “100% carbon free future fired by solar and wind” as the ultimate solution – especially when this is clearly not the case. Carbon emissions are typically generated throughout the mining, recycling, manufacturing, transport, operation and infrastructure improvements for all “wind and solar” systems. Over time, “wind and solar” system efficiencies degrade, electrical power generation levels drop,
preventative maintenance costs increase, and upgrades with component replacement also increase. Ultimately, major retrofits or total replacement are warranted – ending up back at square one! These are clearly not wholly “renewable” energy systems.
I encourage all citizens to carefully review these issues and vote for Initiative No. 177!

Jim Ramsey, Architect

Colorado Springs

Protect Head Start

Our nation needs child care so parents can go to work, kids can thrive, child care workers can stay in their profession and businesses can prosper.

Even though 71% of moms with kids under 18 are in the workforce, families report paying a third of their take-home pay to childcare and across the country, the annual price of infant child care often exceeds the annual cost of in‑state tuition at a public four‑year university.

The U.S. child care system has been in crisis for decades, being unaffordable and unattainable for too many families. Data released this year from the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor revealed that nationally, child care costs more than rent.

Children who have positive and engaging interactions in their earliest years are more likely to enjoy good physical and mental health over their lifetimes. They are also better able to experience, regulate, and manage their emotions—key skills for later school readiness.

Secretary Kennedy and the current administration’s proposed rule changes will harmfully:

Reduce quality early learning, health, family engagement and leadership, and comprehensive support services to children and families.
Worsen child care ratios by increasing classroom numbers.
Reduce qualification and credential standards for teachers.
Remove guidelines around supporting children with disabilities, who make up the required 10% Head Start enrollment for disabled populations.
Heavily impact rural communities, where Head Start is often the only reliable early learning and child care program available to families.

Chris Thomas

Colorado Springs