Readers Write: Environment, pollution, immigration, feral cats

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Evan Ramstad exhibits a disturbing confusion between “environment” and “climate” (”Human progress is not the enemy of the planet,” July 7). Yes, environmental pollution is disruptive to human health, but a changing climate driven by human-caused global warming is pushing the planet to be unlivable, and it’s getting worse.

Reducing environmental pollution (improving air and water quality) does not, in itself, reduce global warming. Fortunately, switching to carbon-free renewable energy (energy sources that are replenished daily by the sun, like solar, wind and hydro, for example) for our transportation, buildings and industrial needs directly reduces climate pollution and reduces environmental pollution.

Ramstad asserts that Minnesotans “enjoy one of the cleanest environments in the world.” But Minnesota is sorely falling short in its effort to remove carbon pollution from electricity production by 2040, as required by Minnesota state law. The good news is that clean electricity will stimulate the economy that Ramstad seems to hold as his top priority.

John Dunlop, St. Paul

•••

Ramstad’s weekly column in the Sunday business section always interests me. His June 30 column had me thinking about economists’ focus on growing our economy (“Growth is a hot topic for readers”). As a retiree who depends on Social Security and investments to make ends meet each month and have enough money for life, I tend to consider economic growth good for me personally. However, I also want to pass on a habitable planet to my great-grandsons. Is aggressive economic and population growth compatible with sustainability? I truly wonder about that.

Economist E.F. Schumacher wrote a book first published in 1973 called “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.” In his book, he quotes Gandhi: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not for every man’s greed.” Schumacher goes on to suggest that “what were luxuries for our fathers have become necessities for us” and “the cultivation and expansion of needs is the antithesis of wisdom. It is also the antithesis of freedom and peace.” Later, he writes, “Economically, our wrong living consists primarily in systematically cultivating greed and envy and thus building up a vast array of totally unwarrantable wants.”

Instead of encouraging population and economic growth, maybe economists ought to consider ways to construct an economic system that distributes wealth equitably and values people more than consumption. Schumacher died in 1977, but the wisdom of his words lives on 50 years later. I invite readers (and economists) to find and read Schumacher’s book, which offers sane alternatives to our current path.

Tony Keenan, Columbia Heights

I was transfixed and, at the same time, moved while reading Peter M. Leschak’s essay about humans’ ability and need to “save the planet” (”Gaia’s woodpile,” Opinion Exchange, July 7).

His essay is beautifully written and a highly enjoyable read. But I found it to also be a highly spiritual reflection on our role within the context of “nature” on this planet. Humans? Deer mice? No difference. The biosphere/Gaia doesn’t see a difference. Gaia will survive whatever we do to her. The ones who may not survive for long are us, if we allow our own extinction to come about. It’s our choice. Thank you to Leschak for a new take on an old problem. As he rightly points out, we can’t and don’t need to “save” the planet. We should be more focused on our own survival on this planet. Our survival is in no way guaranteed, and pretty much relies on our own actions toward Gaia, the “source.”

Don Jacobson, Minneapolis

•••

I appreciated Sunday’s commentary “Gaia’s woodpile” and would add that the key word here is “sustainability.” What is or is not a sustainable lifestyle for humans can be debated endlessly, but perhaps those who don’t get it will rethink environmental reality when climate change causes more and more storm damage to the point where it is hard or impossible to get home insurance because insurance companies cannot cover that much loss (”Homeowners insurance erodes,” editorial, July 10). Or when crop failures become more frequent due to extremes in flood and drought conditions and even farmers have a hard time collecting on any sort of crop insurance, and we see grocery prices rise higher and higher as a result. These are just two examples of what might register with those who, for now, only care about how cheap gasoline is at the pump.

Anne Baynton, Cambridge

Simon Adams says that “asylum-seekers are not illegal” (“Southern border is a humanitarian catastrophe,” July 6). It is true that requesting asylum is not an illegal act, but many asylum-seekers are entering the U.S. illegally before requesting asylum instead of doing so at a port of entry. Unfortunately, the vast majority of immigrants are entering the U.S. illegally. Between February 2021 and October 2023, there were 6.5 million encounters with immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. 5.8 million of those immigrants were apprehended between ports of entry. In other words, they attempted to enter the U.S. illegally. About 75% of asylum-seekers entered the U.S. illegally. And only about 15% of those who initially claim asylum are eventually granted it (based on 2019 figures from the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review), which indicates that most asylum-seekers are not truly refugees but are seeking to move to a better country. That is a valid goal, but they need to pursue it legally, not by coming here illegally and claiming asylum when they do not meet the criteria for asylum.

I agree with Adams that the U.S. needs to fix the border crisis. The first step is to reduce the flow of people entering the country illegally so applications to enter the country can be processed in an orderly way.

James Brandt, New Brighton

The article “Feral cats and the fix too far” in the Star Tribune on July 6 reports that because of rising costs, the Animal Humane Society is charging $75 to sterilize all cats considered unadoptable before releasing them to the neighborhoods where they were caught, under their “community cat” TNR (trap, neuter, release) program. Other rescue organizations are facing similar financial issues, especially since the number of stray or abandoned cats has skyrocketed in recent years as people can’t afford them or don’t want them post-pandemic, when many were adopted.

Many shelters across the U.S. are full to capacity with people surrendering cats and dogs because of care costs and housing restrictions and are unable to take in more animals. So some people are simply letting their cats go free to fend for themselves. This is a tragedy indeed, meaning more animal suffering, a slow death for cats, more decimation of wildlife and public health risk from several diseases cats can carry.

Charging people who bring in cats they have saved from the outdoors is likely to backfire, becoming a financial deterrent for would-be animal rescuers when the word gets out that rescuing animals comes with a price. This is a sad reflection of the rising costs of operating animal shelters, which all communities should support.

Aside from the problem of rising inflation, there is the pro-life ideology of “no-kill” shelters, which does not face the reality and necessity of having to euthanize otherwise healthy animals when there are too many for which to find responsible owners.

Michael W. Fox, Golden Valley

The writer is a veterinarian.