Letters: The future of Illinois and our nation is carbon-free energy

Chicago Tribune

5 hours ago

Edward Cross ('Global demand for energy is rising. There's no better place to produce it than America,' June 10) is absolutely correct that global energy demand is rising. In Illinois alone, data centers could increase annual electricity requirements by 30% by 2040. I agree that oil and gas will be necessary for the near future, and producing them here in the U.S. is the best option for our energy independence and national security.
It's unfortunate Cross' fossil fuel argument doesn't touch on Illinois, where we rank fifth in the nation for installed wind capacity. Illinois produces over half of our electricity from no-carbon sources, primarily nuclear and wind. and investment in battery storage and grid improvements can help integrate existing and future sources more effectively. Just like oil and gas, these industries provide good jobs to Illinoisans.
While it's true the oil and gas industry has made great strides in reducing its carbon emissions from production, don't let those numbers mask the fact that those fossil fuels still produce the same amount of carbon when they're burned. On top of that, fossil fuels alone cannot keep up with increasing energy demands, especially now that natural gas turbines are facing years of delivery backlogs. Restricting renewable energy will only increase the demand on oil and natural gas, raising their prices. These factors would combine for a nasty increase in energy prices. Allowing no-carbon energy sources to flourish lowers everyone's electric bill.
The future is here, and it's no-carbon energy. Solar and batteries accounted for 80% of new U.S. electricity generation capacity in 2024. Illinois clearly has options beyond fossil fuels to address our energy needs. Strengthening nuclear reliability, expanding renewables and improving grid efficiency can reduce dependence on oil and gas while keeping the lights on.House Republicans are scrambling to find $800 billion to help fund the extension of President Donald Trump's $3 trillion tax cuts — overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Their plan? Slash Medicare and Medicaid, moves that could strip 12 million or more people of health insurance and force rural hospitals to close.
There's a better solution: Eliminate the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture, a bloated, ineffective giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.
According to the nonpartisan Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 45Q will cost U.S. taxpayers $835 billion by 2042. If the industry's demands for higher credit rates and longer durations are met, that number could balloon to $3.8 trillion.
Ask yourself: Would you rather your legislators vote to preserve Medicare and Medicaid, or hand billions more to fossil fuel corporations that are already raking in record profits?
For decades, fossil fuel companies have enjoyed trillions in government subsidies — from tax breaks to unpriced environmental and health damages. These companies, among the most profitable in history, are also the leading contributors to climate change and deadly air pollution.
Carbon capture sounds promising on paper, but 45Q won't meaningfully reduce climate change. Most captured carbon dioxide is used for enhanced oil recovery — prolonging fossil fuel extraction. Meanwhile, the environmental damage and emissions continue. Climate-linked disasters are rising, and air pollution already kills millions annually worldwide.
Instead of throwing more public money at fossil fuel giants under the guise of climate action, Congress should invest in clean energy, resilient infrastructure and public transportation.
Readers can tell their senators and representatives: No health care cuts. No 45Q subsidies. No support for any budget deal that sacrifices essential services to fund giveaways for fossil fuel polluters and billionaires.
Let them know where you stand — before it's too late.As a Lyft driver navigating Chicago's streets through all conditions, I've witnessed how ride-share services have transformed transportation in our city. With the proposed city ordinance now pulled and discussions moving to the state level, we have a real opportunity to get this right.
I understand drivers' urgency about earning fair pay and having better protections. We work hard, often putting in long hours to serve our communities. The shift to state-level discussions opens the door for collaborative solutions that deliver results. Unlike city ordinances that may create conflicting regional regulations, statewide standards provide consistency and sustainability that both drivers and platforms need.
Minnesota's experience proves this works. When Minneapolis passed a local ordinance with very high minimum pay rates, ride-share companies Uber and Lyft threatened to cease operations, warning that dramatically higher prices would price out riders and leave drivers with fewer opportunities. Instead, Minnesota lawmakers brokered an enduring statewide solution through extensive negotiations involving all stakeholders, improving driver compensation while keeping services accessible.
Minnesota succeeded because stakeholders understood how this industry really works. They recognized that ride-share driving is fundamentally different from traditional employment — drivers value flexibility, work across multiple platforms and often drive part time around other commitments. Minnesota's solution reflected these realities rather than forcing ride-share into an outdated regulatory framework.
Illinois needs this nuanced approach. Effective protections might include portable benefits across platforms, transparent earnings information and sustainable earnings standards that provide certainty without reducing valued flexibility.
Companies are showing readiness to engage seriously. Lyft already demonstrates commitment through concrete actions such as guaranteeing drivers make at least 70% of weekly rider fares after external fees.
As a driver, I want continued independence, better pay, clearer protections and earnings transparency. But solutions work best when developed with input from drivers who live this reality, companies understanding operational constraints, labor advocates fighting for rights and policymakers creating sustainable frameworks.
The neighborhoods relying most on ride-share — historically, underserved areas — deserve policies that enhance rather than threaten reliable mobility access. I regularly drive Chicagoans depending on ride-share for essential trips where public transit is limited.
Illinois lawmakers can follow Minnesota's example, bringing stakeholders together for genuine collaboration. Let's work on solutions reflecting how ride-share actually works while providing real driver benefits and maintaining affordable, accessible transportation for all Illinois residents.Paul Vallas' regular op-eds in the Tribune have displayed the ongoing political evolution of a man whose career began in 'lakefront liberal' circles. Like Ed Koch, the 1980s New York mayor who began his political career as an anti-machine liberal, Vallas evolved to the point that his race for mayor was supported by the city's most conservative elements.
But Vallas' most recent op-ed ('We must not allow a repeat of 2020 George Floyd protests in Chicago,' June 11) on how Chicago should respond to possible protests against the Donald Trump administration's war against immigrants might point to one further evolution on his part. Vallas never mentions Trump, nor does he offer even a pro forma criticism of the gleefully thuggish approach Immigration and Customs Enforcement is taking.
Maybe Vallas is ready to evolve again, from conservative Democrat to Trump Republican.Thank you to Philip Milord of Western Springs ('Required reading') and Jon Boyd ('Waste a way of life') of Chicago for their very insightful and intelligent letters on June 13. I could not have said it any better!
I moved to Illinois from the East Coast, and it has been mind-boggling how this state has such a disregard for simple economics. Our grandchildren will carry this burden — if they stay in Illinois — but that actually would not be necessary if the governor and the mayor of Chicago would simply use the rule of 'we can't spend what we don't have.'