ENERGY

SOLAR ROOFS BILL MERITS GOV. LINGLE'S SIGNATURE

While we appreciate The Advertiser's push for a stronger solar-only requirement, the gas exemption provided in SB 644 is hardly a "loophole."

Homebuilders are allowed to use gas only if the water heater is a high-efficiency "on-demand" gas heater and another appliance also uses gas.

In certain situations — a home under forest canopy in Volcano, for example — gas is a more practical option than solar (and far more efficient than electricity). Given the infrastructure requirements for gas and the skyrocketing cost of oil, few of these "all gas" homes will be built.

Today, only about two in five new homes use solar and the rest typically use electric water heaters — the least-efficient means to heat water. Even if a small percentage of new homes opt for gas heaters under this policy, Hawai'i will be much more sustainable than today.

Besides the obvious financial and environmental benefits of building solar into new homes, this measure protects consumers and preserves existing retrofit tax credits. The voluntary utility solar performance and consumer protection standards that exist today are ending this year. The solar roofs bill would require that legally binding consumer-protection standards be adopted within one year from now.

Most critically, the solar roofs bill helps focus our limited tax credit incentive where it is needed the most: switching existing homes from electric to solar. Building solar into new homes reduces the cost of home ownership from Day One, while existing homeowners need a bigger push to convert.

The solar roofs bill is the type of transformative change Hawai'i needs to kick oil.

Solar on each new house is the foundation to building Gov. Linda Lingle's vision of achieving 70 percent clean energy in Hawai'i by 2030.

We must reduce our use of foreign oil for Hawai'i's economic security. The governor's signature on the solar roofs bill is a landmark step toward doing just that.

BUS STOPS

FIX THE PROBLEM, DON'T JUST BANISH HOMELESS

Where else are the homeless going to be banished from?

They've been pushed out to the fringes of our parks, forced off the beaches, now there is a proposal to prevent them from sleeping at bus stops.

They are already sleeping in doorways or on sidewalks fronting businesses along King Street. Where next? In our front yards or driveways because they have no other place to go?

What kind of society are we? Who out there is going to help these people? They (along with the pigeons that we are no longer allowed to feed in the parks) have nowhere to go and no one seems to care, except that suddenly they have grown in numbers and are posing problems.

Let's solve this problem in a more humane and peaceful way. Use our tax dollars. Fix the problem instead of pushing it into another area or farther on down the street.

GOVERNMENT

MANY GOOD ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF A CONCON

Ironically, those who argue against a ConCon on the grounds that special interests favor it are themselves special interests.

Unions oppose a ConCon because they fear it would create the "right to work" in Hawai'i whether or not an employee joins the union. The Democratic Party is afraid voters will realize that the Democratic-controlled Legislature has been deficient, and that the ConCon is an opportunity to take democracy into their own hands.

Average people will make their own decisions. Some will favor a ConCon, and others won't.

I am one of those average people who favor a ConCon. I believe that in a democracy the average person has not only the right to get involved in determining how society is governed, but the obligation to do so.

The power to make laws that is placed in the hands of Legislators originates from the people. The ConCon is a rare opportunity for people to vote directly on proposals for new laws; it is democracy in its purest form.

Those who oppose a ConCon claim voters will be swayed by special interests. But it is much easier for special interests to sway a majority of 76 state legislators than a majority of the 350,000 voters who are expected to cast a ballot.

Some legislators are raising the cost argument against a ConCon. But I don't think any of them has argued against the large salary increases for legislators recommended by the Salary Commission.

There's still a possibility that I might change my mind about a ConCon if given a good enough reason. But I haven't heard it yet.

WAR

SCOTT MCCLELLAN RIGHT, PRESS BLEW IT ON IRAQ

Scott McClellan's explosive new book charges the press with not doing its job in the run-up to the Iraq war.

I've watched the cable news chattering classes dismiss the charge. I've also watched all the remaining Bush apologists repeating the same mantra: "Everybody believed that Saddam had WMD."

That is absolutely not true. The U.N. weapons inspectors who were running all over Iraq at the time didn't believe it and said so. Yet, the press dismissed them like you'd throw away a paper napkin after lunch.

Why do you suppose that Bush refused to let the U.N. weapons inspectors finish their job? Why do you suppose that he chased them out of Iraq? Could it be that he knew Iraq didn't have WMDs; that he had to chase them out of Iraq before they destroyed his rationale for this god-awful war?

Scott McClellan is right. The press had it handed to them on a silver platter. And, the press blew it.

RECYCLING

DIFFICULT FOR TOURISTS TO RETURN BOTTLES, CANS

We have just returned from a 10-day stay on Kaua'i, and were pleased to see that the bottle law is in effect. But not so pleased on how you have to return the empties.

We had purchased two 24-bottle cases of water and some other bottles of pop and beer. No place to take them back to — the stores won't take them back.

Somebody didn't think this through. There are two places where you can return the empties, which means tourists who are not familiar with the location will not be able to return the empties. Was that the plan? So that hotel employees and whoever feels like collecting the empties can make a few dollars?

And what is the point of recycling if you have to drive out of your way, waste fuel and create more pollution?

It would be much smarter if the stores that sell the product were required to take them back, and I would make any bet that a lot more empty containers would be returned.

Hawai'i depends on tourism, and I'm surprised it is not more convenient for tourists to return cans and bottles. It's expensive enough there, you don't have to gouge the public.

This was a return visit to your Islands for us after 10 years of absence. Don't know that we'll hurry back.

IMMIGRANTS

'WETBACK' FILM MAY CHANGE YOUR THINKING

While Honolulu's papers have been filled with angry letters about the term "wetback," I have been trying to learn more about the undocumented worker situation.

I started by watching an award-winning National Geographic film "Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary."

It demonstrated how very, very desperate you have to be to try to come into the U.S. illegally. Many are robbed, beaten, raped and killed in their attempt. Most would rather brave these dangers and skirt immigration laws than face survival through theft and violence in their own countries.

I also learned that most pay taxes — billions of dollars of taxes — through payroll withholding under fake Social Security numbers. This is money that benefits all Americans and extends the viability of our flagging Social Security system.

To those who come to the U.S. to try to earn an honest living, I say my heart is with you. I hope my country can find a solution that provides you with safe opportunities for honest work at an honest wage.

If you haven't seen the NGS documentary "Wetback," I urge you to rent it. It may just change your thinking — and your choice of words.