Claims that grappling aggressively with climate change is too costly miss the point. Working through our government, we choose where to spend money and what we try to accomplish. Climate repair expenditures made now are capital investments that start paying returns almost immediately. And they become more valuable by the day, as inflation raises fuel prices and as supplies come under periodic geopolitical stress.
The money we spend does not just disappear from the economy. Most climate program money buys capital equipment and infrastructure that will deliver abundant, cheap, reliable energy to us tomorrow and far into the future. Some of that money pays the workforce that builds the solar farms and the wind turbines and the power lines and the battery factories and, yes, the nuclear power plants. And those wages cascade down through the rest of the economy to pay the farmers and the grocers and the homebuilders and the servers and the teachers and the doctors and nurses, all of whom drive the economy and pay the taxes and keep the nation at large economically vital.
Mr. Wittik’s argument (“Climate change: Is the solution worse than the problem?” July 17) that an $11,000 annual per capita cost to achieve 95% decarbonization would “bankrupt most of us and the nation at large” is a recent example of such a narrow view. Focusing exclusively on money spent up front also fails to recognize money saved later on from the fuels no longer purchased, the hospital visits not needed, the subsidies for fossil fuel extraction eliminated, and the climate migrations avoided.
Mr. Wittik asks if a less painful path to a future perhaps just 6.75 degrees F hotter might be acceptable and less “economically unconscionable.” Mr. Hillinger (“Climate change a pretty big problem” July 24) strongly disagrees and notes that the Earth has not seen such temperatures for the last 3 million years. I will add the obvious that our species has never seen such conditions either. I don’t think we can afford to keep fiddling while our world is burning. Step outside and sniff the air.
Dodd Stacy
Etna
I read in a recent edition that “bites are up 30%” for ticks (“Bites still sending people to the ER,” Page A2, July 25). The thrust of the article was about increasing risk of global warming and Lyme disease.
Surely the planet is warming. However, we cannot estimate from emergency room visit rates, which represent maybe 1 in 1,000 bites, that tick bites or Lyme disease are up or down. That’s just unscientific.
Further, the real thrust of the article should be that the last place you should go, if you have a straightforward tick bite or even early Lyme Disease, is your ER. Go to your primary care doctor. Early Lyme is rarely an emergency, unless you have significant headache or neck stiffness. This is an example of overspending in U.S. health care. Leave the ERs to deal with the emergencies.
Also, the CDC should track diagnoses of Lyme (this is possible through many medical databases), not rates of tick bites in the ER; that’s not remotely accurate for anything useful (Lyme travels in deer ticks, for example, not dog ticks), and extremely inaccurate.
Brian Alverson, M.D.
Lyme
The idea that the government needs to step in to combat misinformation, and that liberals are in support of this, makes no sense. Do people really think so lowly of each other that we can’t be trusted to encounter lies and decide for ourselves what to believe? Every single person is doing their best at determining what is true, and it’s often when we disagree that we actually learn something. You can teach people not to share their thoughts but it doesn’t prevent them from having evil thoughts, and in fact only deepens whatever misinformed beliefs they might have.
Surely we can all agree that censorship is bad, even if we call it by another name and think it is a small price to pay for safety from offensive opinions. Since when does the government care about human life? If it did I’d imagine health care would receive more funding than the weapons industry. Since when does the government never lie? I feel like I’m living in George Orwell’s “1984.”
Anastasia Rodzianko
Etna
On behalf of the Hanover Lions Club and the Hanover Lions Charitable Foundation, I would like to thank the players, parents, families and friends of the players, our sponsors from the Upper Valley business community, all those who volunteered their time, and all who helped make happen the recent Hanover Lions’ “Byrne Cup” Twin State All-Star Games, held on Saturday, June 24, at Hanover High School, where the outstanding graduating senior boy and girl lacrosse players from Vermont and New Hampshire squared off against each other — this year was the 30th annual boys game, and the 27th for the girls.
We are proud to honor these athletes with an event that culminates their high school lacrosse careers. At the same time, the event serves as one of our important charity fundraising events of the year. All net proceeds are returned to the Hanover-area community in our charitable giving efforts supporting many different individuals, groups, organizations, causes and community needs, including the Lions’ traditional mission of providing help to those that cannot afford it for sight and hearing needs.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank, in particular, the Jack and Dorothy Byrne Foundation, for being a major supporter of this event. This year’s recipients of the annual “Byrne Cup” trophy for the winning teams, were the New Hampshire girls and boys.
William (Star) Johnson
Hanover