Jill Burcum's Jan. 23 column "When will it be over?" brings a welcome perspective acknowledging both the "caution" and "bright spots" in our future pandemic landscape, whatever it will be. But as a person currently healing from the virus, I would like to add that no matter the "new normal" in our "COVID weather," at this point, receiving a positive diagnosis and experiencing symptoms creates a portal of existential suffering, fear and dread.

While I had been wearing masks and social distancing, I was still infected. And even though I had been vaccinated and boosted, thus assuring me that most likely I wouldn't be hospitalized and on a ventilator, there were still those moments when I wondered what the next 24 to 48 hours would bring. Waking up with serious symptoms and watching my temp go up and congestion deepening, I experienced the terror that I too could become one of the statistics we all hear about each day, the number of people hospitalized and dying.

Yes, in the new normal some people each year will become ill with some form of COVID, but let's not normalize ourselves to the terrors and losses of disease. Public health is still serious business. By the time you read this, I hope I am feeling my well-being again.

Nancy Victorin-Vangerud, Minneapolis

Thank you for revisiting climate change in the Jan. 23 editorial "Climate threat grows as economy revives" and for pointing out how various governmental groups are focusing on the urgency of taking action. Many of the proposed actions could have a positive effect on reducing carbon emissions. Although these efforts make us feel like we are doing something positive, they are insufficient to address climate change on a larger scale. The principal result of piecemeal programs that rely heavily on government regulations would be increased partisan disagreement.

We need a more durable approach if we are to have a chance of significantly reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. By 2050, we will have at least four presidents and numerous changes in party control, so we need a bipartisan plan that will withstand the test of time.

A better, market-based alternative to many of the current proposals is to put a price on carbon with a corresponding dividend that is returned to individuals and families. This would be revenue-neutral, would not rely heavily on regulations and would be more likely to have bipartisan support.

Setting a carbon price would correct a long-recognized shortcoming in our market system. The price of fossil fuels does not include the external costs that result from climate change. A carbon price would be more effective and less expensive to implement than a patchwork of incentives and regulations. The increase in fuel prices would be addressed by a dividend that would return most of the price increase back to individuals and families.

Americans respond quickly to price signals in our economy. We need to put a realistic price on carbon and let the market provide the incentives needed to reduce emissions and address climate change.

Richard Skarie, Minneapolis

•••

Understanding time frames is very difficult, but motivation to address the climate emergency depends upon it. Geologists can quickly grasp how virtually instantaneous the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is, compared with any other time. Even at this relatively breakneck speed, however, climate damage is accelerating over multiple decades, and it's very easy to miss, until you are clued in. In addition, the business community has an intense focus on just a few years, or even just months. The drop in pollution resulting from the pandemic was a blip. Humanity needs long-term thinking for permanent solutions, requiring a full-court press of every technique to end carbon emissions, starting with the most effective, such as carbon fee and dividend. (Interactive website En-ROADS offers an easy and very powerful graphic simulator.) Everyone in lifeboat-Earth needs to grab an oar or start bailing.

Gary M. Stewart, Laguna Beach, Calif.

Some newly elected Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board commissioners feel that Hennepin County taxpayers should reimburse the Park Board for additional time needed to construct the Southwest light-rail transit tunnel near Cedar Lake ("Light-rail tunnel thrown off track," Jan. 23). Some of their constituents say the Metropolitan Council "didn't listen" when this project was being planned.

Were these commissioners present at the decade-long public planning process? I was. Many suggestions from people living near the tunnel were heard but considered unworkable. These included canceling the entire project, moving the TC&W railroad out of the corridor (summarily rejected by the railroad), moving the route to the Uptown neighborhood (where the ratio of cost to ridership wouldn't meet criteria for federal matching funds). Other suggestions were adopted, including not taking a single adjacent townhome and using construction techniques to reduce noise and vibration (a "press-in piler" along the entire tunnel). These have added considerable cost and time. Now neighbors are concerned about how long Cedar Lake Pkwy. will be closed in this narrow corridor (as suggested by the contractor's civil engineers).

Have these commissioners considered how their actions look to residents of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, who have supported SWLRT from the start and tolerated disruption in their cities and multiple road closings for years? To those of us who feel that our generation should urgently get on with building green infrastructure to combat global warming?

Finishing a project of this magnitude takes cooperation and considering the views of all stakeholders. It might be a good idea to ask whether the closure of Cedar Lake Pkwy. could be shortened. But asking Hennepin County to transfer money to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board at the request of one aggrieved group seems like a bad idea. Where is the sense of community with our suburban neighbors, and indeed with future generations?

Richard Adair, Minneapolis

When I opened the Business section of the Jan. 23 paper on my laptop, I was reminded of what I like about living in Minnesota: People like Lee Schafer live here! ("Columnist signs off grateful for richness of life.") Thank you, Lee, from someone who has never met you except through your thoughtful, wise columns. Enjoy retirement.

W. Bruce Benson, Northfield

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.