ADVICE & DISSENT.

LETTERS FROM OUR READERS

JUST WARMING UP

Although the news presented from around the world on climate change is alarming ("Welcome to the Greenhouse Century," September/October 2000), your special report is very much appreciated. Contrary to public perception, this issue has been discussed for more than a century. But it seems as though our western culture's profit incentive and residual war-based economy (weapons and their delivery systems are created from fossil fuels and nuclear power) are almost oblivious to the tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide entering the Earth's atmosphere every year. Isn't it time for the people of the U.S. to match our economic activities with our ecological concerns?

I'd also like to point out a correction, however. In your E Word editorial, you refer to "five tons of carbon dioxide per U.S. citizen" and also state "Americans will have pumped another billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." But these tonnages are actually for carbon alone. Your statistics, allowing for some correction due to rounding off, are more accurately expressed as "20 tons of carbon dioxide per U.S. citizen per year," and "Americans add about 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year."

James Newberry New Haven, CT

Global warming has come to my part of Connecticut in the form of bizarre instances of extreme weather. Last winter, for instance, there were several marathon thunderstorms. I remember that one day the thunder and lightning began mid-afternoon and went on until 11 p.m. or later; yet there was hardly any rain. Then there were unseasonal interludes of mild spring weather, sandwiched between bursts of such bone-chilling cold that I had to carry my dog home, the frozen ground hurt her feet so.

When does the anecdotal, like my observations and some of those cited in your September 2000 cover story, merit elevation to the status of evidence? I suppose not until the situation has become so critical that business interests and politicians feel safe in clamoring for large-scale initiatives, costing billions of tax dollars, to put right what could have been rectified more easily and cheaply if only they had had the courage to take action sooner.

Robert Davey Bridgeport, CT

I would like to commend you on your global warming issue. The mainstream media has so far said little about a topic that a large majority of independent scientists believe is a real danger to the future of this planet. I fail to understand why, with such a threat hanging over us, we need to wait for absolute proof and total agreement before acting. Is it worth jeopardizing the future of our children, grandchildren and other life on this globe? You have done a good job of reviewing scientific evidence, and also of giving concrete examples of what has already happened all over the Earth.

Independent periodicals such as E Magazine are essential in our society for keeping citizens aware of crucial problems, which magazines that depend heavily on advertising are afraid to touch. Thank you for your hard work and insights. Keep it up!

Elizabeth Mark Alexandria, VA

Your article on global warming told a fascinating and little-understood story that nonetheless has crucial implications for life in the 21st century. Global warming is no longer just a theory to be debated in academic circles: It is having real effects on real people. It's disturbing to consider that some skeptics still say that the science isn't in when a plurality of climate scientists agree that it is, and there is so much anecdotal evidence to suggest the process has already started.

While it may be too early to advise friends and family not to buy beachfront property, it's plain that the world will have to brace itself for the onset of warmer weather, rising tides and an increase in storms, floods and general disruption. Only by reducing fossil fuel use can we hope to repair the damage already done to the atmosphere. E's story and the mounting evidence of these devastating effects will, I hope, prod the nations of the world to hurry up and take action.

Jim Mason Mount Vernon, MO

In E's special issue on global warming, I appreciate how you pointed out the salience of the problem to all aspects of environmental thinking and activism. Having just finished researching The Global Warming Desk Reference (to be published next year by Greenwood Press), I was impressed by the depth and accuracy of the writing. Ross Gelbspan, who wrote the introduction, is always good on the subject, and I also liked the specific emphasis placed on various parts of the world, especially China.

Global warming is a very large subject, and even a special issue can't stretch to cover it all. Other aspects of the problem warrant more in-depth coverage, such as ozone depletion's relationship to global warming, and the positive steps being pursued to reduce greenhouse gases in many European countries, especially Great Britain and Denmark. A third area that needs deeper examination is the devastation faced by coral reefs around the world.

Bruce E. Johansen, Professor University of Nebraska Omaha, NE

I was disappointed to see in your "Greenhouse Century" piece that Mark Hertsgaard's discussion of global warming ("China: The Cost of Coal") included no suggestion of one palliative for China's contribution to the problem of coal-generated pollution: Namely, providing China with less-polluting oil and natural gas, or even better, the latest in alternative energy technology.

I imagine most people's response to such a suggestion would be: "Huh? Isn't China supposed to pay for that stuff?" In other words, we seem unwilling to forego short-term financial gain to help China meet its legitimate goal of providing a decent living standard for its people through less-polluting means. Hopefully, environmentalists have a broader perspective, but your neglect to mention this option causes me to fear that even environmentalists have failed to learn the lesson of "the tragedy of the commons."

Ken Meyercord Founder, Zero Growth Pleasant Hill, CA

In the section of your "Hot and Bothered" feature entitled "Antigua and Barbuda: In a Tropical Depression?" Jennifer Bogo writes: `"Lenny was a serious anomaly," says Keithley Meade of Antigua's Meteorological Office. It surprised everyone by spinning in the opposite direction of the typical storm.'

I would hope the second sentence in this passage simply paraphrases Meade incorrectly; the alternative is that he's a meteorologist with no clear concept of hurricanes. Either way, the statement is false.

The winds around hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere (and, indeed, all low-pressure systems there) circulate counter-clockwise. Hurricane Lenny couldn't have, as you state, spun "in the opposite direction of the typical storm." Lenny was an anomaly because it was traveled along a rare west-to-east path and therefore struck islands from a different direction than normal. That distinction doesn't lessen the damage that the islands suffered.

Sid Perkins Alexandria, VA

Editor's Note: Thanks for the clarification. Our intention, when we stated that Lenny "spun in the opposite direction of the typical storm," was that although the rotational axis of the spin itself was not anomalous, the path in which the storm was spinning, was.

I recently ran across your magazine and read the global warming series. I have worked as a trained environmental engineer and civil engineer on a couple of major federal facilities. My experience includes work for environmental restoration and compliance projects. I've dealt with all the major mediums: air, soil, water/ groundwater, social, biological and cultural. And I am not terribly surprised at the absurdity of your article.

Since when has anecdotal material become scientific proof? The article is nothing more than a poor example of "cargo-cult" science, inferring cause-and-effect relationships by superficial observation. If this article is typical of your magazine, then you are the source of more problems than solutions. If you use ridiculous and unfounded emotional appeals to change people's behavior, you will lose their respect as well as their ear and your cause will suffer. Anecdotal stories with no clear-cut relationship are insulting to the scientific method and to any scientists worth their salt.

Daniel Yocum Colorado Springs, CO

Your special issue dedicated solely to global warming added credibility to the most troubling issue of our times; however, I was left disappointed and confused regarding your neglect to offer the clearest and most convenient solution for everyone to take. Though you had two different covers for your magazine, the unifying connection should have been Al Gore's endorsement for President of the United States.

The effects of global warming are being felt all over the world, and with our country far and away the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, we have an added responsibility to seriously tackle this nightmare. George W. Bush's position is that there is not enough scientific evidence to take this problem seriously. Yet in the super-tight race where every vote counted, your failure to articulate this was dismaying.

It is projected that a one-meter rise in sea level will put as many as a billion people at risk, with more than a million people facing displacement in countries such as China, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Phillippines, with unknown effects on Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia and Thailand. At the Millenium Conference at the United Nations in September, the President of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, asked the 149 world leaders present, "When the U.N. meets to usher in yet another century, will the Maldives and other low-lying nations be represented here? My time at the podium is up, but I pray that of my country is not."

And right in Washington, D.C.'s backyard, a 1996 conference at Chestertown, Maryland's Washington College brought together 140 scientists, property owners and government officials who produced this blunt statement: "The evidence that sea level has risen, is rising and will continue to rise along the coast of Maryland is so great that no informed person would suggest otherwise." Unless, of course, we're talking about potentially the next President of the United States.

Jay Lustgarten North Bellmore, NY

We welcome your letters

Please type letters double-spaced, and include your full name and address and a daytime phone number. Mail to: E Magazine/ Advice and Dissent, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881, or e-mail them to: [e-mail].