Reduce, reuse and recycle solutions are within our reach

Reduce, reuse and recycle solutions are within our reach

Re: “Upstream solutions to downstream problems,” July 30 commentary

In the 1960s, beverage containers were glass, aluminum, or cardboard. Why can’t we go back there today for many of our liquid products? It doesn’t take a new packaging discovery, a new plastic formula, or anything else. It’s all right there. Why can’t our government require companies to evolve their packaging strategies to go “back to the future?”

Curt Anderson, Broomfield

This article hits the nail precisely on the head. We recycle but stay within the rules of our trash collection company to rinse out containers and strip the paper labels from metal cans. That requires “precious” water be wasted. And then we are not really sure.

We reuse plastic bags that the grocery stores send home with us for trash. The rest, we recycle at the store along with other plastic bags that display the “recycling” symbol, hoping those actually get recycled. And while there are alternative “biodegradable” trash bags available, most of us will not use them because of the cost. To us, it’s a lot cheaper, at 10 cents per bag, and more environmentally expedient to reuse those grocery store bags for trash rather than commercially available trash bags that aren’t biodegradable and can’t be recycled.

We need to rethink this whole process if we’re going to make any progress.

Greg Albrecht, Aurora

TABOR money could be better spent than refunded

Re: “Proposition HH: Democrats are seeking TABOR runaround — again,” July 30 commentary

Evidently, Krista Kafer has never had to worry and stress about inadequate finances to pay for a home. She is not happy about Proposition HH efforts to use some or all of the TABOR money to help provide housing for people who can barely afford a home or who are actually without a home. It seems that if she would “lose thousands of dollars in TABOR refunds,” then surely she can afford to be concerned enough about the poor and the homeless people in Colorado to share some or all of her refund dollars to help provide safe and affordable housing for other people.

To me it seems that the average Coloradan would be amazed to receive Kafer’s “thousands of dollars in TABOR refunds.”

I remember a couple of years ago going to the bank to deposit my TABOR refund check of less than $1. We know that it cost much more than $1 to do the math, print, and mail that check to me. How much better would it be if those costs and refund dollars went to the kind and worthy cause of helping families and individuals in desperate need of affordable housing?

Janet Johnson, Golden

Refinery must be held to safety standards

Re: “More PFAs going into Sand Creek,” July 30 news story

What is it that about Suncor Energy that state and federal government agencies continue to give them a pass on pollution standards? They are allowed to comply with outdated standards; review and change of said standards are delayed by years; completion dates of new standards are ambiguous; punishment for exceeding standards appears to be minimal; and, worse, Suncor Energy’s actions flout laws and regulations.

Suncor is the worst air polluter on the Front Range. They continue to release “forever chemicals” into our water. When people feel powerless over their lives, in this case, regulation of Suncor’s polluting actions, they are most likely feeling helpless, anxious, stressed and depressed. It’s called “moral distress.” Isn’t it time to put a stop to Suncor’s egregious acts that disregard the mental and physical health of Colorado residents? Every day, corporations like Suncor are allowed to prioritize profits before people. Set a date, and make it happen. It’s already too late.

Mariann Storck, Wheat Ridge

Forty-five years ago, I was a member of Rocky Mountain Greenpeace, an extension of the original Greenpeace Foundation based in Canada. In response to local concerns about illegal and dangerous discharges into Sand Creek from the Commerce City refinery (then owned and operated by Conoco), a small group of us were prompted to go to the site to raise awareness in the community of this problem.

Armed with only some large absorbent mats, we waded into the creek to soak up the visible oils flowing out of the plant and into the creek. We felt that people living downstream of these discharges should be aware of and concerned about the possible health risks associated with these run-offs. Conoco officials basically ignored us as a bunch of loony tree huggers, as did the local media, and this action quickly died as anything newsworthy.

Flash forward to 2023 and Noelle Phillips’ in-depth article on the front page last Sunday. In addition to that “oily sheen,” the creek contains toxic chemicals and pollutants that we were unaware of so many years before. Our increased scientific knowledge has enhanced our understanding of the horrible consequences of the dangers of exposure to these pollutants. Yet over the decades, Conoco, Valero, and now Suncor continue with business as usual, relying on armies of lawyers and PR reps to downplay the dangers.

Every person downstream from the Suncor refinery should be shouting out for more aggressive methods of controlling and restricting these dangerous discharges.

I am battling prostate cancer. Did I get it from Sand Creek back in the 1970s? Maybe, maybe not. But can we afford to go another 40 or 50 years while risking the dangers to our people and our environment without making changes?

Bruce Weyler, Englewood

Election 2024: We can’t go back there

Re: “Trump will settle his score “Apprentice” style,” July 30 commentary

I offer my heartfelt thanks to Jo Ann Allen for the wonderful Sunday column. It is so good to know that there is a person of intelligence to put the truth out there. If you are kind enough to run for president or any position of trust and power, you’ve got my vote. I have zero trust left for the parties mentioned in your column. I do fear that this sort will keep getting elected.

Joan Tinnin, Parker

If this article doesn’t scare you, nothing will. It should be mandatory reading for all Republican-leaning voters.

Norma Turner, Highlands Ranch

Don’t overlook the good that SROs do on campuses

Re: “Tickets, arrests didn’t rise when SROs returned,” July 30 news story

As a former police supervisor of school resource officers (SROs), I read with interest the recent article updating the number of arrests and tickets being issued by Denver Police officers in our Denver public schools. I also noticed the frequent use of loaded, hot-button words such as “targeted,” “disproportionality” and “criminalization” sprinkled throughout the article, likely causing us to negatively evaluate how our police are performing.

Disregarding the stories behind these arrests and whether they were the appropriate course of action given the circumstances is ignoring, as someone famously said, “the rest of the story,” such as situations where police actually prevented harm to students, created an environment where students feel safer and developing positive relationships where barriers were broken between police and students are important as well.

If we are becoming conditioned to believe the only measure of SRO impact in a school is how many arrests or tickets occur, we are short-changing ourselves on their real measure of worth.

Jeffrey Cohn, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.