Readers talk back about John Roberts, nuclear power, Wal-Mart, and more
Re: Toadus Operandi
Your piece on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts lacked a bit of perspective. While Roberts may or may not have sympathy for the environmental movement, his rulings in In Re: Cheney (2003) and Sierra Club v. EPA (2004) were right legally, even though they didn’t favor the “environmentalist position.”
This does not mean that Judge Roberts is anti-environmentalist. It just means that the claims made in those cases by the environmentalists were losing legal claims. Activist groups and lobbies make all sorts of claims in litigation; some of them are supported by law, some aren’t.
Additionally, some critical information was lacking in the piece regarding Roberts’ dissent in In Re: Cheney: the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in that case was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds Judge Roberts identified in his dissenting opinion. While he disagreed with some of his colleagues on the D.C. Court of Appeals, those colleagues were simply wrong as a matter of law.
It’s unfair to draw a conclusion that Judge Roberts is anti-environment based upon his record. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Judge Roberts ruled in a legally correct manner on every environmental case presented to him thus far.
J. Todd Kincannon
You mention that France has cut its emissions while we have increased ours, so why not get behind Bush and support his nuclear-energy rebirth? We in the U.S. receive less than 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear power and it is decreasing, while France receives over 80 percent and it is increasing. Wonder how they cut emissions?
I don’t know why you need to be so snotty about Wal-Mart. At least they’re trying to do something environmental! They should be applauded, not sneered at. The objective is to make a better world, is it not?
Penrose’s article did nothing to help those of us who are committed to buying organic, natural, and earth-friendly products. What’s his advice? “If we create demand for consumer goods that champion our goals, we start the corporate world on the long journey toward sustainability.” How? What goals did he set out for us? How do we avoid becoming eco-chumps? He doesn’t help us answer that question.
New York City, N.Y.
Re: Just Maui’d
I read your article about carbon-neutral weddings and wanted to bring to your attention our organization, Carbonfund.org, which offers carbon offsets for weddings and other events, as well as personal carbon footprints for home, cars, and travel.
As an all-volunteer nonprofit, we happen to offer them at a fraction of the price of Future Forests and other for-profit groups.
Silver Spring, Md.
In regards to the letter criticizing an article that used the term “eco-terrorism” in place of the correct term “eco-vandalism”: Eco-terrorists are those who commit acts of terrorism against our ecology, and more specifically, those who attempt to protect it. For example, I am terrorized daily in my commute as a cyclist by fossil-fuel addicts who despise my presence on the road and try to run me over with their SUV-clad bodies — that is an eco-terrorist to me.
Re: Noah’s Clark
Excellent and timely interview with Jamie Rappaport-Clark. Oh, how I wish she were still director of the Fish & Wildlife Service.
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
I think it is inflammatory to say “and other planetary niceties as rich white people.” That is a completely racist remark. There are rich people of every nationality, color, and creed. White people can no longer take the burden of being the rich folks to point the finger at. White people have never been the only rich folks. They are just the easiest target, and I would think that you would be more sensitive to that. You can’t fight racism with racism!
Christine von Kolnitz
Mt. Pleasant, S.C.
I admire your offer of the solar kit, but I can’t say the same for the ‘scream. Why didn’t you offer a vegan product?