Hot topic gets hotter

Re “No stopping climate shift, U.N. study says,” Feb. 2

It is now almost universally acknowledged that human activity has caused climate change, but what never seems to be acknowledged is the role that the explosion of human population growth plays. In 1900, there were fewer than 2 billion people on the planet; now there are more than 6 billion. Even if all people consumed at the same levels that they did in 1900 (a joke right there), we would be using three times the resources now that we did then, with all the environmental consequences that carries.

Most solutions to this situation are so unacceptable that we cannot consider them, but can we not honor and emulate the Chinese “one child” policy, which has helped slow our rush to disaster?

ERICA HAHN

Huntington Beach

*

So the United Nations says there is no stopping climate change. For once, the U.N. is correct. This Earth is a living, vibrant, sometimes violent, ever-changing planet. Much of North America was once covered with water, with tropical forests and huge glaciers, which have been receding since the end of the Ice Age.

Nothing we puny humans do can significantly alter the natural evolution of this Earth.

DON WAGNER

Santa Monica

*

Global warming is now officially “real.” If we are lucky, it will give everyone on the planet a common enemy.

RODGER GARRETT

Loma Linda

*

Re “How carbon emissions turn green,” Opinion, Jan. 31

Garrett Gruener and Daniel M. Kammen open a conversation that is long overdue. The most efficient way to curb our use of petroleum would be with a carbon tax, although I would argue that a gas tax at the pump should be larger than that suggested by Gruener and Kammen. This would encourage people to shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles, make them more aware of their carbon footprint, lower our dependence on imported oil, decrease air pollution and improve our national security.

To their creative ways to redistribute the tax money I would add the following: Use some of it to pay the first 20% or so of Social Security taxes for people with incomes below $25,000, which would reduce the regressive effect of the gas tax.

GARY PETERS

Chico

The writer is a professor in the department of geography and Planning at Cal State Chico.

*

Does it not seem pointless when a wealthy company is provided the option of buying pollution credits, when the costs incurred can simply be levied on the consumer? This would not financially impact such a polluter, nor would it provide any real incentive to bring about ecological benefits.

MICHAEL E. WHITE

Burbank