Dear Editor:

OK, John Edwards seems to have a really good plan, so why cast doubt on his sincerity? (“What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know…”) We can’t be sure what any candidate has in his or her heart, so we can only judge by what the candidate says he will do and hope that he follows through with it. Grist seems to be buying the mainstream media’s “Edwards story.” Why? Perhaps you feel that the cynicism makes you appear more intelligent? Please don’t do this. You could be helping to sink the best candidate we have out there!

MizLee

 

Re: How Green Is Your Candidate?

Dear Editor:

The analysis should have mentioned that on June 19, 2007, Clinton and Obama both voted for a coal-to-liquids amendment.

Clinton’s position is directly opposite that of every major environmental group. Obama’s and Clinton’s votes are opposite that of at least 61 [members] of the Senate. And it’s opposite the vote of the most reliable environmental votes in the Senate (Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, Wyden, Whitehouse, etc.). In fact, even the Senate’s leading global-warming skeptic, James Inhofe, voted the same way Boxer did on this amendment! This vote is very telling of how Clinton and Obama would be on global warming, i.e., very weak.

stk

Editor’s note: Our fact sheet on Clinton did note her vote on the coal-to-liquids amendment, and our fact sheet on Obama described his position on coal-to-liquids as well.

 

Re: How Green Is Your Candidate?

Dear Editor:

I usually have strong views on candidates, but this time around I don’t know. Edwards talks the enviro talk, but can he walk the walk? I’m glad that he understands that coal equals bad, even when liquefied, but the corn thing still bothers me. And why won’t anyone address Big Agribiz in the same way as Big Oil? They amount to about the same and have similarly destructive tendencies.

Also, how will Africa grow crops for biofuels when much of it is gasping for enough water to keep its populace alive, much less prospering? Desertification is another issue that needs to be addressed. How about a freeze on building new golf courses and fountains in desert areas and Florida until wetlands to refill the aquifers can be restored?

SnoDragon

 

Re: Edwards on the Record

Dear Editor:

The root cause of the environmental problems we have today is overpopulation. No matter how efficient we become and no matter how much we reduce the amount of resources we use, without a reduction in the growth of our planet’s population, and ultimately a reduction in the population itself, there will be no solution.

To interview a leading candidate for president on his environmental platform and not ask about population is unconscionable.

Paul Scott
Santa Monica, Calif.

 

Re: Obama on the Record

Dear Editor:

I find it interesting that even our greenest of candidates doesn’t mention the one environmental problem that affects, and has caused, all the others: overpopulation. The next time you interview any of the candidates, could you ask them their position on this most fundamental of all issues?

Kucinich wants us to embrace sustainable practices and technologies, but nothing is sustainable in the face of an ever-increasing human population. The carrying capacity of our planet is finite and cannot be overcome with windmills and solar panels.

Marian Ashe
Sacramento, Calif.

 

Re: Kucinich on the Record

Dear Editor:

You guys need to do your homework if you are going to maintain any sort of credibility. I suggest looking at the emissions results of Stephane Dion’s reign as environment minister for the former Liberal government. Then decide whether vague promises as part of his new “repackaging” actually allow this fraud to be placed on a list with some truly visionary leaders. Dion talks a lot, but does nothing. If Dion gets in power, the only thing “Kyoto” in Canada will be his dog.

Matt Chantry
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

 

Re: 15 Green Politicians

Dear Editor:

Stephane Dion should not be on your list of green politicians. While he talks about the issue, he accomplishes nothing. Dion simply follows the polls and the wind to determine his policy. Dion was environment minister in Canada’s previous government and he did little to comply with any Kyoto requirements. It is Dion who neglected to honor his obligations to Kyoto. In Canada, Kyoto is dead. It is not possible for us to meet Kyoto obligations unless we decide to pay out tens of millions in credits. I am very surprised that all one needs to do to make your list is to wave a green flag around. The facts do not support Dion as a green politician. You have failed in your obligation to do adequate research when writing this list.

P.S. Dion renamed his dog Kyoto as a stunt, and now Dion has a very confused dog.

Andy Shaw

 

Re: 15 Green Politicians

Dear Editor:

The “15 Green Movies List” is a joke! I thought I was going to see a list of movies whose producers actually produced a “green” movie (leaving a smaller ecological footprint, such as Evan Almighty), rather than just a two-hour bitch session about how evil corporations and capitalists are. How about a list of films that reflects some restraint in use of resources to create the film?

Show us a real list of “green” films! I’d pay $20 a show to support those kinds of films!

Jane Cowles

 

Re: 15 Green Movies

Dear Editor:

I found this list very enlightening. Well done, Grist, for giving some good press to those who see the environmental crisis as a spiritual one and as of great importance to the religious community. The work of these people needs much more exposure and support.

But I’m wondering why length of service wasn’t a chief consideration in placements, as there can be no one with a longer, stronger voice in this area than that of Thomas Berry who, rather than being No. 1 was No. 15. While I applaud those who finally see the whole picture, Berry was here talking about The Great Work we need to do before there was any concern in the religious community about global warming or any sense of responsibility for what’s happening.

Sherry Boyd
Charlottesville, Va.

 

Re: 15 Green Religious Leaders

Dear Editor:

Hi folks. I just read a batch of letters you’ve received lately, including one complaining about your puns. Please don’t ever let such complaints change your style. I love that you have your way with words. It’s who you are. Please keep it up, and sorry I can’t include something witty here to show my gratitude. Maybe next time.

Jackie Jablonski
Port Huron, Mich.

 

Re: Writing Our Wrongs

Dear Editor:

I love Grist, I really do. And I have for quite a long time. Generally I appreciate your humorous spin on the environmental issues I deal with every day. I do urge editors, however, to exercise a little more careful judgment as to what is funny and what is just outright vulgar. I’m an environmentalist, but I am also a feminist, and I am turned off by statements where anyone is being told to “suck it,” as was done in one of the blurbs in your Daily Grist. Save it for the e-news digest that goes out to the chauvinist/homophobic former frat-boys, OK? Many thanks.

Jessica Dexter

 

Re: Yeah, Right, and Pluto’s Not a Planet

Dear Editor:

You’ve been my hands-down favorite source for environmental news for well over a year, but lately I’m finding myself not bothering to read the Daily Grist. The headline puns are still OK, but the copy has gotten too long and seems to have lost most of the snide humor I loved so much. There’s more gloom and doom than ever. Bring back your sense of humor!

Pam Worner

 

Dear Editor:

The thing I love about what Leo is doing is just this: a couple of months ago, Greensburg, Kan., was a town we felt sorry for, something to be pitied and be sad about [due to the tornado that hit it recently]. Now it has turned into something to be admired and inspired by! What a wonderful turn of emotions for this town, for this state, and for everyone that just wants to make a difference.

Kristin Larson-Jantzi
Newton, Kan.

 

Re: Leo, I’ve Got a Feeling We’re Not in Hollywood Anymore

Dear Editor:

You failed to mention the No. 1 reason Americans have large fridges: suburbia. They have to drive to get to a grocery store, so they stock up! It may not be an issue in New York City, but it certainly is in most sprawling communities. Not to mention the other biggest reasons: huge appetites and large portions, the love of leftovers, larger families, no little cafes within walking distance, and few healthy choices for inexpensive places to eat out as a family.

Having a smaller fridge would command more frequent and special trips to the Food Lion, which might diminish the return on saving a little energy on a smaller fridge. Too bad, but probably true.

Charle-pan Dawson
Troy, N.Y.