Not Doing Enough About Climate Change
Re (news article, Nov. 5): Our angry climate is screaming for an end to our combustion of coal for energy. Mining it adversely affects human health, transporting it consumes fossil fuels and burning it emits greenhouse gases, heavy metal toxins and particulate pollution. This wise decision to abandon coal by a long list of countries at the Glasgow climate summit is such good news. But, sadly, the United States is not on that list. We are still burning this dirty fuel for a sizable portion of our electricity, and we bypass the great opportunity to come clean. This news is a huge disappointment for so many of us. Politics is at play here. It is so hard to fathom that the solutions for a global climate emergency, with all the insidious problems that accompany it, hinges on one politician from West Virginia. No words describe my dismay! Sally Courtright Albany, N.Y. Re (COP26 Climate Talks, nytimes.com, Nov. 5): I am a junior in high school, and I find it extremely heartbreaking to hear the effect that air pollution has directly caused on the lives of so many people. The stories of these mothers whose children are struggling with the effects were particularly powerful. While climate change may seem like an abstract concept, the personal stories and losses of many families around the world are not, and I hope these stories awaken our world to the gravity of this issue. In regard to COP26, I feel as if nothing is changing despite the widespread effort for climate justice. I worry that countries will not change their practices, or the changes they make will not be enough. As , COP26 is sort of turning into a greenwash campaign, a P.R. campaign. What can we do if those who lead us arent invested in fighting for our planet? When I think about our future now, I imagine a bleak, almost apocalyptic world filled with pollution. How can we envision a good future when we live in a world where neither our environment nor our health are priorities? Sahana Hariharan San Jose, Calif. If the Biden administration is serious about limiting greenhouse gas emissions, it needs to address the contributor: raising animals for food not fossil fuels, as many prefer to believe ( , news article, Nov. 2). According to the Worldwatch article , raising cows, pigs and chickens for food is responsible for over half of greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that has been underestimated and often ignored. Even when the problem of Big Meat surfaces in climate breakdown discourse, as it does briefly in this article, it is given little weight and its impact is downplayed. If we are to have a chance at altering our current trajectory, we must face the truth about the meat industrys key role in climate breakdown, and not remain focused on fossil fuels, despite their devastating contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions. Ben Lotka Philadelphia I would hope that climate change deniers are having an increasingly hard time making their case. However, in a world of several billion people, each of us is going to have to take some responsibility for the current situation. As unpleasant as the thought is, we may have to significantly reduce disposables that clog our waste stream, we may have to limit air travel, we may even have to limit the amount of meat we eat in an effort to reduce methane. I am sure there are other small sacrifices we can each make, but we cannot leave everything up to government. Sura Jeselsohn Bronx Re (news article, Nov. 10): Indeed! At the present time more than a billion people, several hundred million in Africa and India alone, live in poverty thanks to a lack of reliable energy. As an economist, I believe that the imposition of green mandates on developing countries is no different from economic tariffs. It must inevitably retard their development, as well as their ability to export their natural resources to the rest of the world. What makes it unconscionable is that the richer countries cloak their intentions under a toga of morality. If the planet is to be saved, then that saving must begin at home rather than forcing developing countries into an existence that not even the poorest of the poor in rich countries would accept. Mark Castelino Newark In (column, Nov. 2), Paul Krugman lists many excellent reasons that those asserting their freedom not to get vaccinated are putting others at risk, but he doesnt mention a crucial one. The more the unvaccinated permit the virus to spread, the greater the chance of a new variant emerging, and the next one might find ways to sidestep the immune defenses of those of us who are already vaccinated. In addition to not having the freedom to dump garbage in the street, as Mr. Krugman so aptly puts it, there are many freedoms that citizens sacrifice for the common good, including as well his example of vaccination requirements to attend school. Theres no freedom to drive on the left side of the road, to run stop signs or to hit someone in the nose. Your fists freedom ends at the tip of my nose. So lets stop talking about freedom, especially as its giving the Covid-19 virus the freedom to kill us all. Is that the freedom that Fox News and the Republicans opposing vaccine mandates want to protect? James Berkman Boston Mandated Covid vaccination for workers does not violate their freedom. They do not have to take the vaccine. They can choose to get tested for Covid, work for a smaller employer not yet covered by vaccine mandates or leave the work force. Covid vaccination protects those in the workplace from infection, with the benefit of protecting the vaccinated worker, the workers family and friends and other contacts, and the public if public contact is part of the workers responsibilities. Higher vaccination levels are the only way the country and the world will get the pandemic under control. One can think of vaccination like imbibing alcohol. Adults can drink all they want in the privacy of their own home. That endangers only the drinker. They cant drive a vehicle while intoxicated, because that endangers others. Thats why there are state and federal laws against drunken driving. And thats why there are now workplace Covid vaccination requirements, with : to protect others. Daniel Fink Beverly Hills, Calif. Re (front page, Oct. 26): Perhaps these price increases are warranted and overdue. For decades, Americans have been privileged to have access to a smorgasbord of cheap food products. We have taken advantage of this and splurged on ridiculously extravagant holiday meals, with Thanksgiving representing the most over-the-top. Now that food prices are going up, we start to whine and complain that we cannot afford to eat as extravagantly as we are used to eating. A lot of the underlying issues behind the price increases (supply-chain issues, climate-related product shortages, etc.) should have been considered in the prices of food products from the get-go. We should always take into account the impacts on the environment, on workers and on supply in the prices of our products. If wages are not high enough for people to buy necessities such as food, then wages should be increased as well. But that is yet another long overdue development in American society. Dylan Barclay Brooklyn