Readers React: We can’t fight climate change without addressing overpopulation

To the editor: If only the climate change summit underway in Paris were to lead to the most direly needed global accord: recognition that our planet has a finite carrying capacity for humans, with agreement on how and when to bring our numbers within environmentally sustainable limits. (“Paris climate summit could bring historic deal on emissions, but likely won’t halt climate change,” Nov. 29)

Equitable considerations that impede climate change consensus are daunting enough, but the overarching problem of population control presents even more intractable issues. Rank historical injustices — including land grabs, enslavement and genocidal rampages — demand but defy resolution. And then there are the religion-based notions of entitlements to reproduce disproportionately.

Even as the need for worldwide population planning becomes ever more urgent, most leaders prefer to ignore the problem. It’s far more politically palatable to endure environmental degradation, fight endless wars and suffer famine and disease.

Kendra Strozyk, Cameron Park, Calif.

..

To the editor: Merely pointing out the climate problem does not serve us well as a nation. That sort of reporting in 2015 is akin to a homeowner watching her home catch fire and not taking action to extinguish the flames.

The Times ought to start informing the public about specific solutions. California has AB 32, but nationally cap-and-trade has failed. So what else is available?

The Times should investigate and report on a selection of climate policies, so as at the very least to better inform the next president and Congress of their options.

Pearl Lin, Altadena

..

To the editor: After the diplomats have enjoyed Paris for a few days, they will congratulate themselves for what they will proclaim to be an agreement solving a pressing global problem. If history teaches us anything, it won’t come close to being a solution.

When it comes to the immediate need for international agreements that will cause discomfort, countries send a bunch of high-level folks to major cities with four-star restaurants and fine hotels with meeting rooms and immense round tables and good lighting for TV cameras. They sagely consider the matter and then come up with multi-page treaties written in weasel words, having no means of real enforcement, and whose most significant provisions won’t kick in until all the negotiators are dead.

By then, of course, the issue either is moot (unlikely in this case) or has overwhelmed us.

Donald J. Loundy, Simi Valley

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook