Dear Editor,

I appreciate the effort people like Matt Russell (executive director of Interfaith Power and Light) put into a conversation on improving our world. But it reminds me of a recent campaign by former Representative Jim Leach promoting “civil dialogue.” As I listened to him on the radio it was apparent that being civil to him meant agreement, not the sharing and discussion of differing opinions.

Mr Russell obviously assumes “climate change” is caused by human action and that politics can maintain an idyllic climate. A real discussion of climate change would involve more than the “absolutely” “critical” farm bill. It would involve the actual viability and effectiveness of alternative energies that are rammed down our throats even though they wouldn’t exist without subsidies coerced from taxpayers.

When I hear a discussion of how the grid will support widespread use of electric vehicles or civilization’s present lifestyles maintained using these pie-in-the-sky technologies, I’ll change my mind. But until then, the importance of a farm bill indicates an acceptance of totalitarian government and cronyism.

Progress toward new technologies must be driven by market forces, not dictatorship. An example would be farmers adapting no-till because it is more profitable long term, especially in extreme conditions. As it stands, federal crop insurance substitutes for a maintenance of healthy soil and props-up destructive farming practices.