Rethink Solutions for Global Warming

Re “U.S. Is Feeling the Heat in Climate Meeting Gridlock,” Nov. 24: The U.S. should be ashamed of itself for trying to wriggle out of its global obligations by reducing greenhouse gas emissions through loopholes instead of deeds. By saying that “the atmosphere doesn’t care whether you’re getting a reduction in gas from Russia or Paris,” we are actually admitting to our unwillingness to abide by the Kyoto Protocol.

It behooves us to do our part to make the world a better and healthier place to live. Given that the Kyoto Protocol is already nothing less than an agreement of compromises, excuses for noncompliance reek even worse than bovine methane.

JOHN T. CHIU

Newport Beach

*

James Hansen’s essay on global warming (“Global Warming Is Real, and It’s Serious,” Nov. 20) indicates a warming of one degree per century. It seems hard to believe that we can measure such a small change within the large seasonal changes that occur and be so positive that global warming is occurring. However, there is the international conference at The Hague on how to reverse or stop global warming.

If we are really facing a potential disaster, why does Hansen not include nuclear power as part of the solution? Isn’t nuclear power one of the few methods of power generation that does not produce carbon dioxide, a fundamental product of combustion and the greenhouse gas that is one of the greatest threats for global warming? Is not most of the world building nuclear power plants at a fast pace? Is there a real reason why nuclear power plants should not be built, or are our scientists political cowards?

LYMAN BURGMEIER

Cypress

*

Hansen’s recommendations provide solutions that are all well and good and could help keep the economy of the world humming if we were able to get the kind of cooperation needed worldwide. But why omit population control?

DUANE FINLEY

Banning