Gov. JB Pritzker’s signature this month on comprehensive energy legislation that promotes renewables is a welcome sign for people like me coping with high electricity bills and a warming planet that has caused torrents of rain in Chicago and elsewhere in the country.
Besides funding large batteries to store electricity from renewable sources, the law also provides funds for community geothermal energy programs such as the federally funded Sustainable Chicago Geothermal project on the city’s South Side, increases subsidies for energy-saving measures in homes and repeals the moratorium on new large nuclear reactor construction.
Taken together, the energy-related elements go a long way toward helping wean us off planet-warming fossil fuels, despite signals from Washington that promote drilling and burning petroleum. This new law will strengthen our electrical grid, which also can be bolstered with clean energy permitting reform at the national level.
Clean energy projects often encounter long, complex permitting steps that slow construction and raise costs. In fact, building a new electrical transmission line, on average, takes over a decade. Practical reforms — such as improving federal review timelines, modernizing oversight processes and enhancing coordination among agencies — can help ensure that good projects move forward faster while upholding environmental and community protections.
We need to urge our congressional delegation to work across the aisle to pass clean energy permitting reform now. Getting clean energy projects up and running faster will also support the state’s goal to end by 2050 the use of coal and natural gas to generate electricity.
— Joe Tedino, Chicago
Fossil fuels drive policy
Political activist Noam Chomsky was once asked if the United States acts in the national interest. He replied that no nation acts in its national interest; that’s a term of propaganda. He added that nations act in the interests of powerful internal groups that control policy.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Trump administration’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra, its efforts to gain control over Venezuelan oil and President Donald Trump’s recent meeting with major oil executives at the White House.
Notably, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright previously served as CEO of Liberty Energy, North America’s second-largest fracking company. Similarly, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State during Trump’s first term, was formerly chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, the world’s largest non-government-owned oil company.
Trump even called on oil executives to donate $1 billion to his 2024 election campaign, and members of Congress are estimated to hold up to $93 million in fossil fuel stocks.
When fossil fuel profits drive both foreign and domestic policy, it’s the world’s most vulnerable people — and the planet — who pay the price.
— Terry Hansen, Grafton, Wisconsin
Industries over health
I was appalled and saddened to read the article “EPA to stop considering ‘lives saved’ for guidelines” in Tuesday’s paper. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s focus will now be on the cost to industry when setting pollution limits instead of protecting our health.
In my 37 years as an attorney for the U.S. EPA, impacts to human health and the environment guided every decision at the agency. The EPA was created to protect people, not profit margins.
— Jane Lupton, Evanston
Plant-based eating
As world leaders gather for climate talks, one major contributor to climate change continues to be sidelined: industrial animal agriculture. While energy and transportation dominate the conversation, factory farming remains a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, water pollution and biodiversity loss.
Ignoring this reality weakens any serious climate plan. We cannot meet climate goals while leaving animal agriculture off the table.
Fortunately, solutions already exist. Shifting toward plant-based foods reduces emissions, conserves water and lessens pressure on ecosystems — without requiring new technology or massive infrastructure changes.
Climate action isn’t only about policy; it’s also about personal responsibility. In a world facing overlapping environmental crises, choosing meat-free meals is one of the most immediate and effective ways individuals can reduce their climate impact.
If we truly care about the planet’s future, our climate conversations — and our plates — must reflect that.
— Matthew Alschuler, Chicago
Cannabis legalization
The recent op-ed on cannabis legalization in Illinois (“The Illinois windfall from legal marijuana has come at a price,” Jan. 12) raises concerns worth discussing, but it repeatedly substitutes selective alarm for careful evidence.
Most striking is the claim that cannabis use disorder (CUD) has surged because of legalization. This argument ignores a fundamental methodological fact: National surveys transitioned from DSM-IV to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, a change long known to inflate prevalence estimates. Nationally, CUD prevalence rose from 1.7% in 2018-19 to 6.6% in 2022-23. In Indiana — where recreational cannabis remains illegal — prevalence rose almost identically, from 1.8% to 6.7%. If prohibition were protective, Indiana should look very different, even allowing for cross-border purchases. It does not.
The op-ed further frames Illinois’ cannabis policy as a cynical cash grab. Yet more than $100 million per year in net cannabis revenues has been reinvested in public health, substance use treatment, community reinvestment and research. Whether those investments are optimally targeted is a legitimate debate. Ignoring that they exist is not.
On medical cannabis, the authors cite mixed evidence while omitting why the evidence base is mixed. For decades, federal classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance actively impeded rigorous clinical research. According to the National Institutes of Health, cannabis shows at least modest benefit for chronic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and multiple sclerosis-related spasticity. The proper response to uncertainty is not to resort to rhetorical certainty in the face of incomplete data, but rather to pursue better science. This approach involves advocating policies that facilitate research rather than making it more difficult.
Traffic fatality statistics are presented with similar overreach. While the share of drivers in fatal crashes testing positive for cannabis rose from 25.1% in 2019 to 30.3% in 2023, the most recent figures are based on fewer toxicology tests. Moreover, nearly three-quarters of cannabis-positive drivers also tested positive for another substance, most often alcohol. Detection is not the same as impairment, and conflating the two misleads the public.
Finally, Illinois is portrayed as a Midwestern cannabis outlier fueling regional distribution. Yet Michigan and Missouri have also legalized recreational cannabis. Illinois is not an island, either geographically or in terms of policy.
We share concerns about emergency department visits, pediatric poisonings, and increased frequent and perinatal use. But proposing a return to prohibition ignores decades of evidence showing that criminalization produces family disruption, community destabilization and racially disproportionate enforcement — harms that far exceed those attributed to regulated cannabis markets.
Experience suggests that regulation, prevention and treatment offer more durable public health tools than criminalization, which has repeatedly failed to deliver the outcomes its advocates promise.
— James Swartz, Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois Chicago
Medicare negotiations
Along with the new calendar year, Jan. 1 also brought lower prices for my medication — and the savings will change my life.
My heart has an irregular rhythm, a condition known as atrial fibrillation that requires me to take the blood thinner Eliquis. That one drug alone retails for as much as $700 a month. It’s a price that’s set by the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and its high cost has felt completely out of my control.
That uncertainty takes a real toll. I’m on a fixed income, and high prescription drug prices always seem to coincide with an unforeseen doctor or hospital charge, forcing me to play catch-up with one bill after another.
This year, my burden will begin to lift. Due to the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare was allowed to negotiate the price of Eliquis, and the new prices took effect on Jan. 1. For the first time in decades, it feels like someone is stepping in to rein in drug prices that have been allowed to spiral out of control.
With Eliquis’ price finally coming down and the out-of-pocket cap limiting my costs to $2,100 every year, I’m able to worry less from month to month.
I’m also looking forward to when the lower prices arrive for Trelegy, an inhaler I take for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that costs over $800 every month. Trelegy is included in the second round of negotiations, and I’ll start seeing the discount at the start of next year.
That’s what Medicare negotiation means to me.
— Tim Carpenter, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
