In a recent Post Independent editorial there was a plea for “civility” in the discussion of energy issues. That is a great idea.

But I was disappointed to see the editorial staff violated “civility” in the closing sections of the editorial by using labels such as “dirty” for all fossil energy versus “clean” for renewable sources, and dismissing scientists who legitimately question the validity of the assumptions, models and popular conclusions of scientists and politicians on the other side of the global climate change issue. Is that civil?

In addition to more civility, which is the respect for the differing views of others, we should seek to deal with facts with less emotion. I realize the Post Independent has a bias toward a renewable energy future without fossil fuels, and that is its editorial prerogative, but it was hypocritical to make the uncivil, emotional, and generally uninformed statements about petroleum and natural gas. Is this really the way to start a constructive dialogue?

I personally believe the country is headed toward a practical balance that takes advantage of the economic and social benefits of each form of energy, and not losing sight of the economic and social benefits the use of oil and natural gas have brought to this nation and the world for over 100 years. I would hope the Post Independent editorial will stimulate constructive dialogue concerning our energy future. Perhaps the Post Independent could co-sponsor some meetings on the issue.

Glenn Vawter

Energy consultant, Glenwood Springs