Editor:

Last week the 1,000-plus page climate change bill was very narrowly passed in the House, with several conservatives voting for it and some members not voting at all. Most never read it completely.

The cornerstone of the bill requires a massive reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of more than three-quarters by mid-century. The past science upon which this legislation is based has been seriously challenged and shown to be fundamentally flawed, as noted in a recently suppressed internal EPA report. There is no consensus amongst the international scientific community. Nonetheless, implementation - if even possible - would have a devastating impact on our country's economy and children's future, already saddled with incalculable debt and out-of-control spending.

In the meantime, the recent sharp decline in solar activity and the global economic meltdown have combined to lower the planet's temperature and carbon dioxide output. An environmental disaster is not pending and there is time for pragmatic discussion. In the meantime, countries such as India and China, now the leading emitter of carbon dioxide, are rapidly expanding their economies and emissions without any restrictions contained in the international Kyoto climate agreement. Capping and trading a tasteless, colorless, and odorless gas will not stimulate the economy into recovery.

We do need an energy strategy to reduce dependence on foreign sources. By simply requiring a one-third increase in combined vehicle fuel economy, the U.S. could eliminate the need for OPEC oil. Meeting future electrical needs through a combination of wind farms and nuclear power plants, coupled with natural gas-fired boilers to augment our burning of coal, would yield at least a 50 percent reduction in further emissions. The combined effect on carbon dioxide output would reduce it below our Kyoto requirement without draconian measures.

Having worked in the resource industry internationally for three decades, there are practical solutions to resolve this situation relying on existing technologies. The next stop for the climate bill is the Senate. Let's hope its members will pause to reflect on the consequences and limitations associated with passing this legislation and make a more informed decision.

DR. TERRY MUDDER, Sheridan