NYT: What We’re Saying…(Climate Change, and Iran)
1. Science and Politics, Heat and Light (4 Letters)
Re “Finally Feeling the Heat,” by Gregg Easterbrook (Op-Ed, May 24):
So Mr. Easterbrook has finally decided to switch sides regarding global warming, “from skeptic to convert.” Well it’s about time!
Notwithstanding his claims to the contrary, clear evidence of climate change has been around for at least the past two decades. Unfortunately, self-styled “environmental commentators” like Mr. Easterbrook, who have publicly voiced skepticism about global warming, have succeeded in providing cover for polluters and their political allies who have resisted taking long-overdue action to address the issue.
If the United States had begun grappling with climate change 20 years ago, the solutions would have been far easier and far cheaper, and recent climate-induced catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina might have been avoided. Ken Bossong
Takoma Park, Md., May 24, 2006
The writer is coordinator, Sun Day Campaign.
To the Editor:
Gregg Easterbrook’s sudden climate-science conversion and call for greenhouse-gas rationing represents a small step forward and a huge step back.
Accepting the science of climate change has never been the real debate: there are, and always have been, reputable scientists, economists and policy analysts who accept mainstream climate science while arguing for affordable adaptive policies and additional research as the most rational policy response to the threat of climate change.
Kyoto boosters have tried to hide this “inconvenient truth” by labeling anyone who disagrees with them a shill or a crackpot, and insisting that science “demands” that we control greenhouse gas emissions. But science only tells us how things are, not what to do.
Greenhouse gas controls of the sort Mr. Easterbrook favors have been expensive failures wherever tried. It would be a giant step backward for the United States to enact such failed, expensive approaches to climate change. Kenneth Green
Washington, May 24, 2006
The writer is a visiting fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
To the Editor:
Gregg Easterbrook’s suggestions for action to mitigate climate change, while creative and promising, involve only a small minority of elite entrepreneurs. To confront climate change now and other environmental concerns in the future, we must engage the entire American public.
Schools should require an environmental science course as part of the curriculum, so that the public can make intelligent and responsible decisions. An uninformed public is a danger to itself, and has always been the greatest impediment to progress.
Jeff D. Stein
Glencoe, Ill., May 24, 2006
To the Editor:
Although it is true that the scientific consensus for anthropogenic climate change has continued to strengthen, the results of numerous studies published in the past year are not qualitatively different from the conclusions published in the 1995 second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
We have, however, lost a decade of crucial time in which we could have started to address the problem of global warming; instead, politicians and pundits like Gregg Easterbrook worked hard to convince us that we should not act. The counter to this argument slips into his article when he admits that “all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than critics projected.”
In the face of legitimate scientific uncertainty concerning a problem with major potential consequences, instead of taking the prudent and morally responsible course of early mitigation, we were led down the comfortable path of waiting and watching.
Now the efforts required will be significantly greater, with reduced chances of achieving the goal of avoiding serious damage to humanity and the ecosystem.
Robert J. Brecha
Dayton, Ohio, May 25, 2006
The writer is an associate professor of physics and electro-optics, University of Dayton.
2. Iran’s Aspirations and American Policy (3 Letters)
“The Persian Complex,” by Abbas Amanat (Op-Ed, May 25), is a fascinating peek into the modern Iranian mind-set. He outlines the identity of a nation still struggling against the perceived hegemony of great-power politics, both past and present.
Iranian leaders have constructed an identity narrative equating nuclear power capabilities with self-determination and increased international power. Unfortunately, the desire to be a player in the global game requires that one play by the rules of the international community.
By conflating nuclear power with self-respect, Iranians limit their opportunities for real influence by creating serious tensions globally. If collective memory is malleable, as scholars assert, Iran may choose to redefine its narrative in order to incorporate the glory of its past with a future that isn’t quite so ominous.
Kristen Lucken
Newton, Mass., May 25, 2006
The writer is an Earhart Fellow at Boston University’s Institute on Culture and Religion in World Affairs.
To the Editor:
Abbas Amanat seems to be a strong believer in the “two wrongs make a right” school of international relations. He argues, in essence, that because Iran has been oppressed and humiliated by foreign powers in the past, we should now sit back and accept the inevitability of Iran’s drive toward what he naïvely refers to as “nuclear energy.”
I, for one, hardly see how Iran’s development of nuclear bombs will accomplish any moral reconciliation whatsoever. John McIntosh
Salt Lake City, May 25, 2006
To the Editor:
Abbas Amanat describes what the Bush administration fails to understand: United States policies toward Iran on the nuclear issue inflame Iranian nationalistic tendencies and unite Iranians behind a government that the majority despises.
The theocracy in Iran has no agenda for governing; its legitimacy comes from the various international crises it can develop (first the hostage crisis, then the Iran-Iraq war and now the nuclear issue). As long as current United States policies toward Iran continue, the theocracy can blame the United States for the sorry state of its economy.
If the United States wants a democratic Iranian state, it should negotiate with Iran. If the current international standoff is defused, the people will look to the Iranian government to improve their lives. With no crisis, reformist elements in Iran can question the government without being accused of supporting the enemy. Then the attention of the Iranian people will return to where it should be: on the abysmal state of the economy and lack of personal and political freedom. Salomeh Keyhani
New York, May 25, 2006
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 30th, 2006 at 10:25 AM and filed under Articles. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
