A childhood funded by coal
Re “We can’t let coal towns die,” column, April 21
Children growing up in Colstrip, Mont., benefit from the “32 public parks and a gorgeous community center, complete with child care, gym, spin classes, tanning booth and water slide,” as columnist Sammy Roth writes. Similarly, I grew up in a comfortable home in Billings, Mont., in the 1950s and ’60s. My mother worked for Montana Power Co. demonstrating new electric appliances, and my father’s law practice included well-to-do clients in Colstrip.
But what price for this comfort? Perhaps it was contributing to a history of “rampant groundwater contamination” and “fine-particle emissions from coal plants [that] killed 460,000 Americans between 1999 and 2020.”
The 1972 Montana constitutional amendment guaranteeing a “clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations” came about after copper mining devastated large portions of the state. Today, there is ample scientific evidence that coal as a source for energy is destroying our health and our planet.
I like to believe that people are basically good and care about one another. In acknowledging the destruction caused by mining and burning coal, families in Colstrip can accept that changes are necessary and find other gainful employment in profitable clean-energy production. Kathleen Brown, Santa Clarita
Re “Changing our lives is scary. But the climate crisis is much scarier,” column, April 22
Fortunately, those who did not take the time to read Roth’s Earth Day column got the key insight from seeing the spectacular photo taken by Robert Gauthier. It showed the vision of climate activist Anne Hedges against the reflected backdrop of the coal-burning power plant sitting in a vehicle likely powered by fossil fuels.
Say you live in the Bay
Area, drive a Tesla and feel Earth-friendly. Guess what? Montana coal is helping energize your car. Merrill Anderson
Laguna Beach
The “jarring lifestyle changes” that will be forced on us by unchecked climate change are so much worse than cooking without gas or giving up throwaway takeout containers, which Roth mentions.
Most importantly, climate change is not “the” problem to be solved. It is a symptom of a massive ecological overreach. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, we would still be screwed — because pollution, loss of biodiversity and the filling of wetlands will get us.
Thus, destroying wildlife habitat with solar and wind, as Roth seems to suggest, is no solution.
Why? Because we are also animals and part of the ecosystem. We need clean water to drink and pollinators to grow our crops. We cannot survive on plastic grass with robotic bees.
As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has pointed out, reducing conversion of intact ecosystems is crucial to fighting climate change. Degrading natural places for industrial energy, even if it’s “renewable,” simply cuts off our ecological nose to spite our environmental face.
Jeff Ruch Oakland The writer is Pacific director of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.