To the Editor:
Re “What’s Green? What’s the Deal?” (editorial, Feb. 24):
Your excellent editorial lays out the contrast between the promise of a well-crafted Green New Deal and the folly of doing nothing to address the central environmental challenge of our time.
From President Trump and Mitch McConnell on down, Republican leaders are running out of places to hide from their abject failure to protect our people from the rising costs and mounting dangers of climate change.
First, they said it was all a hoax. As the seas kept rising, the storms kept raging and the wildfires burned out of control, they threw up their hands and whined, “We’re not scientists.” Now they’ve got a new talking point: Trying to fight climate change, they say, is socialism. Socialism!
Nonsense. Pooling the best of American innovation and ideas to confront growing problems and gathering threats plays to our strengths as a democracy, as we’ve proved time and again through successful initiatives from Social Security to Medicare.
Some Republicans seem hellbent on putting polluter profits first, even when it means putting the rest of us at risk. It’s time to stand up and say we’ve had enough. It’s time for assertive and comprehensive action to protect our children from climate catastrophe — while we’ve still got time.
Rhea SuhNew YorkThe writer is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
To the Editor:
The Green New Deal should be concerning to anyone who actually cares about climate change and supports a serious and urgent solution to the problem. This resolution uses climate change as leverage to push a clear and divisive social welfare agenda. The result is an overly expensive and incomplete solution to the climate crisis.
Your editorial acknowledges these possibilities but hangs its hat on the premise that any climate change proposal is good for the cause. Let’s stick to celebrating climate change resolutions that at least make an effort at unifying the country around ambitious but workable solutions.
Jon NevittScarsdale, N.Y.
To the Editor:
As young people, we are often told to calm down, to be patient. We have our whole lives ahead of us to figure things out. But when young people look to the future, we see a dark cloud. We see wildfires ravaging the West. We hear of record flooding and ever more powerful storms in the South. We feel the frigid cold brought to us by changing weather patterns, and we are scared.
In my classes, I study the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 70 years, which tells us to brace ourselves for climate conditions our species has never seen. That terrifies me. What keeps me optimistic, though, is the fact that people are working to understand how climate change will affect society and the ecosystems we depend on. But that work means nothing if our government does not pay attention to these findings and act.
That is why I am writing to voice my support for the Green New Deal. Climate change is a large problem to tackle, but we have to start somewhere, and the Green New Deal does just that.
Colleen B. SchmidtNew York
To the Editor:
Re “Dianne Feinstein Lectures Children Who Want Green New Deal, Portraying It as Untenable” (nytimes.com, Feb. 22):
In her meeting with schoolchildren, Senator Dianne Feinstein demonstrated how not to approach the Green New Deal, especially with an audience of enthusiastic, idealistic youngsters whose future is at stake.
While I totally agree that the Green New Deal is not viable as currently formulated, I also believe that — especially with regard to climate change — it is a goal to strive toward. But if we are to avoid a tear within the Democratic Party, and a tear between generations, we must embrace both the goal and the obstacles.
What Ms. Feinstein should have said was that she will work toward that goal, recognizing both how important it is and how it will be feasible only in more manageable steps.
Let us not quash the idealism that is needed to make such major changes. But let us also not forget a quote attributed to Voltaire that “the best is the enemy of the good.”
Zvi J. DoronPittsburghThe writer is a retired nuclear engineer and co-author of a book about energy and climate policies.
To the Editor:
While the children of the Sunrise Movement, who are working to stop climate change, may not understand how the Senate functions, they do correctly understand that if the world keeps functioning under business as usual rules, their lives will be fraught with one climate catastrophe after the next.
And it is not just children in states with Democratic senators who know this: Middle and high school students in Kentucky were out in force all week, even camping overnight in front of Mitch McConnell’s Senate office for the chance to make their case.
The Green New Deal may be expensive, but what would you pay to save your child’s life? Multiply that by millions.
Helena BireckiSan Francisco
To the Editor:
American history is replete with what seemed to be, at the time, overly ambitious public policies: Kennedy’s pronouncement to put a man on the moon. The Eisenhower administration’s Interstate highways. And, of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s creation of Social Security.
The Green New Deal should be included in the debate over new public policies and receive scrutiny from experts to ensure that the proposals are judged on their merits.
Mark M. SpradleyChevy Chase, Md.
To the Editor:
“To Cut Emissions Faster, U.S. Can Apply These Policies” (news article, Feb. 21) shamefully fails to include animal agriculture, which is the second-leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. Not one of the seven steps to reduce emissions even mentions the problem. The article proposes a step to include electric car incentives, even though emissions from animal agriculture surpass those from the entire transportation sector — cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships combined.
We cannot continue to ignore the myriad problems with the meat economy, including its huge effect on carbon emissions.
John SanbonmatsuWorcester, Mass.
To the Editor:
Your editorial supporting the Green New Deal despite some of its unrealistic elements is right on the mark. The problem is that it might now be too late given the speed needed to overcome the extreme warming that has already occurred and the significant damage inflicted by the Trump administration on the Obama administration’s environmental policies.
Historians might well focus on the 2016 campaign that resulted in the election of an unqualified climate denier as the death sentence to life on earth as we know it. They might also cast considerable blame on the mainstream media for its entertainment-dominated coverage, which resulted in what you refer to as the “hard to believe” fact that not one question about climate change was asked in the presidential debates.
Mr. Trump proudly referred to climate change as a “hoax” despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. If the debate moderators had repeatedly asked him for evidence to support this claim and the media had given as much time to this issue as to Hillary Clinton’s emails, then perhaps the Obama climate policies would still be intact, some form of the Green New Deal would not appear so unrealistic, and we now might have a fighting chance to save life on earth as we know it.
Harold J. SmithWhite PlainsB:
【凶】【手】【直】【接】【掏】【开】【了】【女】【孩】【的】【心】【脏】，【随】【后】【从】【心】【脏】【撕】【开】【的】【口】【子】【中】【拿】【出】【了】【其】【他】【内】【脏】。 【章】【警】【官】【立】【刻】【下】【令】【寻】【找】【其】【他】【丢】【失】【的】【器】【官】，【因】【为】【凶】【手】【过】【于】【残】【忍】，【局】【里】【立】【刻】【针】【对】【此】【案】【开】【了】【研】【讨】【会】。 【顺】【其】【自】【然】【成】【立】【了】【专】【案】【组】。 …… 【界】【孽】【照】【旧】【去】【那】【条】【街】【摆】【摊】，【生】【意】【仍】【旧】【非】【常】【少】，【甚】【至】【可】【以】【说】【没】【有】。 【因】【为】【附】【近】【死】【人】【的】【事】，【这】【一】【条】【街】【上】【做】
【顾】【念】【在】【听】【了】【两】【个】【人】【的】【话】【后】，【终】【于】【明】【白】【了】【原】【来】【她】【只】【是】【个】【替】【罪】【羊】。 【方】【氏】【和】【眼】【前】【的】【小】【姑】【娘】【小】【元】【怕】【是】【早】【就】【不】【和】【了】，【而】【小】【元】【的】【性】【子】【又】【是】【个】【喜】【欢】【息】【事】【宁】【人】【的】，【一】【直】【都】【忍】【让】【着】【方】【氏】，【所】【以】【方】【氏】【才】【会】【如】【此】【的】【肆】【无】【忌】【惮】，【在】【客】【人】【面】【前】【都】【不】【给】【小】【元】【半】【点】【面】【子】。 【若】【是】【顾】【念】【今】【日】【穿】【的】【是】【沈】【苏】【送】【给】【她】【的】【能】【抵】【御】【练】【气】【七】【级】【以】【下】【修】【道】【者】【攻】【击】【的】【灵】【衣】
【或】【许】【在】【旁】【人】【看】【来】，【蓬】【莱】【尊】【者】【的】【所】【作】【所】【为】，【可】【谓】【是】【为】【了】【天】【下】【苍】【生】【牺】【牲】【小】【我】【的】【大】【无】【畏】【举】【动】，【是】【值】【得】【名】【留】【青】【史】【的】，【但】【叶】【无】【涯】【却】【不】【这】【么】【看】。 【在】【叶】【无】【涯】【看】【来】，【一】【个】【男】【人】，【如】【果】【连】【自】【己】【的】【家】【人】【都】【保】【护】【不】【了】，【还】【谈】【什】【么】【保】【护】【天】【下】【苍】【生】？【若】【是】【连】【自】【己】【的】【亲】【人】【都】【守】【护】【不】【住】，【那】【守】【住】【一】【个】【天】【下】【又】【有】【什】【么】【狗】【屁】【用】？ 【什】【么】【青】【史】【留】【名】，【什】【么】【流】
【大】【年】【初】【一】【就】【这】【样】【热】【热】【闹】【闹】【的】【过】【去】【了】。【一】【年】【里】【难】【得】【有】【几】【天】【里】【清】【闲】【的】，【初】【一】【这】【天】【人】【们】【都】【沿】【袭】【老】【一】【辈】【人】【的】【观】【点】，【在】【这】【一】【天】【里】【什】【么】【活】【也】【不】【干】，【意】【在】【把】【一】【年】【都】【歇】【过】【来】。【这】【一】【天】【当】【中】【休】【息】【好】【了】【之】【后】，【这】【一】【年】【里】【就】【不】【会】【太】【劳】【累】。【每】【个】【地】【方】【的】【习】【俗】【都】【不】【一】【样】，【不】【过】【像】【现】【在】【这】【样】【的】【放】【鞭】【炮】，【上】【供】【之】【类】【的】，【在】【村】【里】【已】【经】【流】【传】【下】【来】【很】【久】【了】。 【第】管家婆铁算盘王中王【小】【鸟】【兄】【沉】【吟】【了】【下】，【道】：“【欲】【望】【永】【远】【为】【行】【为】【之】【先】【驱】。” 【这】【个】【看】【起】【来】【清】【新】【脱】【俗】【毫】【无】【利】【欲】【的】【姑】【娘】，【其】【实】【本】【质】【上】【就】【有】【一】【颗】【至】【强】【之】【心】。 “【那】【你】【为】【何】【还】【救】【我】？” 【他】【问】【得】【很】【认】【真】，【秦】【鱼】【也】【很】【认】【真】。 “【我】【是】【好】【人】，【并】【且】，【你】【是】【个】【美】【人】。” “．．．” 【吃】【了】【鸡】【翅】【后】，【小】【鸟】【兄】【优】【雅】【擦】【净】【嘴】【角】，【对】【秦】【鱼】【郑】【重】【道】：“【这】【次】
【早】【上】【小】【书】【是】【被】【手】【机】【铃】【声】【吵】【醒】【的】，【毕】【竟】【大】【周】【末】，【她】【又】【没】【有】【陶】【桃】【准】【时】【起】【床】【的】【生】【物】【钟】，【这】【下】【便】【带】【着】【恼】【意】【去】【接】【电】【话】。“【最】【好】【有】【什】【么】【重】【要】【的】【事】。” “【常】【庚】？”【一】【听】【对】【方】【的】【声】【音】【瞬】【间】【清】【醒】【了】，【也】【不】【管】【他】【有】【没】【有】【重】【要】【的】【事】【了】，【反】【正】【重】【要】【的】【人】【啥】【事】【都】【重】【要】，“【你】【怎】【么】【醒】【那】【么】【早】【啊】？” 【常】【庚】【不】【知】【道】【他】【激】【动】【了】【一】【晚】【上】【的】【心】【情】【应】【该】【怎】【么】【和】
“【真】【的】【是】【苏】【到】【不】【行】【啊】。”【麒】【麟】【全】【身】【都】【起】【鸡】【皮】【疙】【瘩】。 “【非】【礼】【勿】【视】【不】【懂】？”【躺】【在】【凤】【曦】【月】【屋】【顶】【的】【夜】【瑾】【一】【问】【道】。 “【谁】【知】【道】【他】【们】【俩】【会】【这】【么】【肉】【麻】！”【麒】【麟】【怒】【吼】。 【姬】【莫】【坐】【在】【身】【旁】【笑】【了】【笑】：“【这】【样】【的】【日】【子】【也】【不】【久】【了】，【算】【算】【时】【间】，【陌】【尘】【凡】【间】【的】【劫】【也】【差】【不】【多】【了】。” 【夜】【瑾】【一】【坐】【起】【身】【子】【看】【着】【依】【然】【站】【在】【院】【子】【里】【望】【着】【南】【风】【宸】【消】【失】【的】【方】【向】
“【等】【等】！【我】【只】【想】【跟】【你】【道】【别】，【过】【了】【今】【晚】，【我】【就】【要】【赶】【往】【月】【阴】【山】……【以】【后】【的】【日】【子】，【多】【保】【重】。” 【她】【驻】【足】【静】【听】，【待】【回】【头】【时】，【烈】【凛】【已】【经】【走】【远】，【左】【右】【而】【行】【的】【脚】【步】，【彼】【此】【之】【间】【的】【牵】【绊】【化】【了】【烟】【云】。 “【你】【也】【要】【保】【重】……”【想】【这】【么】【说】，【却】【终】【没】【有】【说】【出】【口】。 “【听】【到】【了】？【他】【要】【参】【加】