Debora Hoffman

The idea of charging fossil fuel companies with homicide is intriguing (“It’s time to charge oil companies with homicide,” Ideas, March 17). Aaron Regunberg and David Arkush begin by quoting an attorney for a tobacco company who feared that the industry could be held responsible for the deaths of its customers. There is no doubt that Big Oil has caused irreparable harm to people, the environment, the planet, and the climate. The companies know their products are inherently dangerous. And that ham has led to human deaths through the extreme weather events that we’ve all become accustomed to. It’s a logical conclusion to charge these companies with homicide.

In the Big Tobacco example, it may have been the threat of criminal charges for homicide that led to the settlement of the civil litigation against it. If bringing homicide charges against Big Oil can be a similar incentive to push fossil fuel companies to shift away from drilling and to transforming to clean energy sources, then by all means, this tool should be used.

Our goal should be hastening the transition from our dirty, polluting energy sources to an economy powered by renewable and safe sources. Getting Big Oil to buy into this effort could dramatically speed this process.

Your article about what would happen if and when Greenland’s ice sheet collapses and how that would affect the AMOC ocean current highlights several climate change dangers. One, the effects of climate change are happening faster than we had previously anticipated. We’re already living with its early impacts: huge storms, droughts, wildfires, and extreme temperatures. This latest study projects the ice sheet’s collapse in decades, but that timeline could speed up. Two, the impact of the AMOC collapse would mean significantly colder temperatures in Europe. It’s important to remember that climate change is not only hotter temperatures, but more extreme temperatures both hot and cold. And three, an AMOC collapse would bring about more displacement of huge numbers of people in search of food, water, and a safe place to live. Migration is already a big issue; this would make it worse.

We all have the ability to advocate for policies to slow or stop our deadly habit of burning fossil fuels. Amplify your voice and join a climate action group like 350.org, Mothers Out Front, or Elders Climate Action. We ignore the science at our peril.

This year’s COP delivered a needed boost to those working to stem the worst effects of climate change: an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. It’s not a panacea, but it’s not nothing, either.

Yet I wish I had the hope and optimism that Wil Darcangelo expresses in his (Dec. 16) piece. Yes, we humans are capable of change, but it’s hard to see how our entrenched fossil fuel addiction will be cured anytime soon. His examples of changed social mores around smoking and littering apply to Americans, not the entire planet – and it’s the entire planet that needs to be in on this critical transition right now.

Of particular concern is that, for decades, the largest driver in the growth of carbon emissions has been developing countries. It’s the responsibility of countries like the United States to speed the transition not only in our country, but in these developing countries as well.

Darcangelo is convinced that we will evolve into a more just, loving, and environmentally sane species. I’m not sure I agree with him, but I also fervently hope that he is right. We as individuals can help heal the world of our fossil fuel addiction by supporting the clean energy transition in ways both big and small. I urge everyone to check out a climate action group like 350.org, Elders Climate Action, or Third Act and get involved.

What is wrong with us? We’re already suffering the effects of global warming in the form of heat waves, droughts, monster storms, wildfires, loss of species, and ocean warming. According to recent research, huge parts of Earth are likely to be uninhabitable because of climate change. We know the cause: Our burning of fossil fuels warms the climate by creating greenhouse gases. And we have the technology to solve it: wind, solar, battery storage, modern nuclear. Yet countries like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia plan to continue oil and gas drilling for the foreseeable future, putting us on track for overshooting our 2030 fossil fuel targets by 69 percent.

Enabling and promoting more fossil fuel extraction pollutes our environment and is bad policy. It must be halted. Clean energy is now cheaper than oil and gas and is the fastest-growing energy source in this country. It is also our only chance at a future.

Debora Hoffman

Belmont

Kudos to Gloucester for stepping up as a climate champion — we need more cities and towns to follow suit. And extra credit for recognizing that communicating to residents about climate efforts and actions is every bit as important as taking the necessary steps to decarbonize.

The podcast series (“Gloucester’s climate change journey, one podcast at a time,” Times, published Oct. 17 online and in print) is part of the city’s overall effort to lower its carbon footprint and providing accessible storytelling is a way to keep interest high and momentum going.

Individuals listening will learn not only what the city and its activists are doing, but what they as individuals can do. This is a time when we all need to be pulling in the same direction and Gloucester’s new podcast is one step in that effort.

In response to the story, “Report: State has ample solar power potential” (Salem News, July 7), yes, Massachusetts needs more solar energy to meet its climate goals. But no, we shouldn’t be taking down forests and using natural lands to install solar panels.

Preserving forests, especially old-growth forests, is an important climate mitigation tool, as much as building our solar capacity, because trees sequester carbon and when cut down, release it. Trees are also important to erosion control and habitat maintenance for wildlife and insects.

So, when the recent solar industry-authored report says that ground-mounted solar has the most potential, that’s concerning.

Legislation has been filed to encourage solar development on already developed land. Senate Bill 2150/House Bill 3225, An Act to encourage solar development on built and disturbed land incentivizes building solar in the built environment. I urge readers to ask their state leaders to support this initiative.

Cutting down trees to build solar arrays simply makes no sense. If we’re going to meet our climate goals, we need both.

What if, instead of supporting the wealthy few in their inarguably polluting lifestyle, we simply said no? We need to start drawing the line when it comes to building more fossil fuel-supporting infrastructure.

The climate law passed last year allows some communities to ban gas hookups in new construction. Similarly, the Massachusetts Port Authority needs to say no to new hangar space for private jets at Hanscom Field.

We are in a climate emergency, and every policy decision has an impact. The proposed Hanscom hangar expansion, like so many other projects with an impact on the environment, should be evaluated strictly through a climate lens.

Your op ed on the importance of Earth Day as it relates to climate change was spot on ("Amid climate crisis, what does Earth Day mean?" April 28).

Since the 1980s, we have known that burning fossil fuels would cause a rise in global temperatures and yet we continue this dangerous practice today. Global temperatures have already risen 1.2℃ since the pre-industrial age. And we’re living through the effects of climate chaos already: monster hurricanes, sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, devastating wildfires, and loss of species. The alarm bells are ringing and we should be marching in the streets every day to demand the fast transition off fossil fuels.

But there is hope. Renewables are starting to replace oil, gas, and coal and by 2030 are expected to supply 80% to 90% of electricity in the US. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is influencing investment in clean energy; the EPA is poised to announce new rules requiring power plants to capture their carbon dioxide; and both the European Union and EPA are using policy to incentivize electric cars.

Climate policies are proof that elections matter, especially at the federal level. When Donald Trump was in office, there was zero recognition that global warming was an issue. Valuable information on climate change was low or buried on federal agency websites. More than 100 environmental rules, including those in place to reduce emissions, were rolled back. His administration shamelessly pandered to and promoted Big Oil. We need to elect leaders who follow science and use policy to ensure action on climate.

It is clear that Republicans, and some Democrats,- will support the fossil fuel industry until its very last gasp; if only they knew that it’s already in hospice.

Renewable energy is growing rapidly, far exceeding that of fossil fuels. According to a December 2022 report by the International Energy Agency, “renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025.”

It turns out that what’s good for the planet is also good for investors. Those who try to ostracize firms that prioritize these efforts through ESG investing will be left behind.

It was interesting that The Eagle-Tribune ran an editorial from the Los Angeles Times about the importance of California regulators standing up to the oil industry. At first glance one might think, “What does that have to do with us? It’s not like there’s any oil drilling in Massachusetts.”

But wait: That oil being drilled in California, potentially near people’s homes and children’s schools, could be the same oil we in Massachusetts use to heat our homes or power our cars. In this sense, we are most definitely part of the environmental degradation that takes place in California. And the editorial speaks to a larger issue, one of an industry that has known for decades that its product would harm our climate and that will spend huge amounts of money to both cover up that fact and ensure that more and more drilling (read: profits) will continue unimpeded.

California regulators still have the power to protect California residents. I hope they will use it.

Imagine if the very building you live in could help you meet your sustainability goals. The building would have low carbon emissions. The cost to heat or cool it would be negligible. And you could shelter in place in it during a power outage. Sounds like an ideal building, right? This ideal building already exists. It’s a Passive House building.

But what is Passive House? Passive House is the world’s most rigorous energy efficiency building standard. It is the only standard that forcefully addr

Regarding the story “Maine regulators allow wind, utility project to move forward,” published in the Times on Jan. 31:

This is how we do it. It’s fantastic to read that Maine regulators have given final approval to a wind project that will power 900,000 homes in New England. This is an important step towards lowering our carbon emissions and averting a cataclysmic climate crisis.

With generous support from Massachusetts, these two New England states are doing the hard work of creating clean energy sources for our area, with a bonus of creating new jobs as well. Any concerns about cost are mitigated by the importance of the mission. The true cost of continued fossil fuel emissions is far greater than any ratepayer hike. Let’s keep replicating this type of effort throughout the United States.

We shouldn’t be shocked by the record profits that Shell is reaping during this time of global instability. Nor should we be shocked that Shell isn’t leading the way on transitioning to clean energy. Shell may someday be part of our clean energy future, but only until they can’t make any more money selling fossil fuels. We need to ensure that time is soon.

Shell will continue to follow their business model until public officials and consumers start demanding clean energy for our power grid, our homes, our pensions, and our communities. If Shell won’t pivot to clean energy, then we’ll have to put them out of business.

Yes, let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing and continue to emit greenhouse gasses at an alarming rate. That’s essentially what Craig Stevens is arguing when he implores the U.S. to keep “leveraging North American petroleum and natural gas supplies.” This is certainly the easiest path to take, but Stevens’ piece ignores our need to transition away from fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Had we transitioned decades ago, we wouldn’t be facing the problems of energy scarcity and high cost that we’re facing today. If we keep saying we’ll transition later, but we need more fossil fuels now, well, you can see where that gets us.

We have to say no to continued fossil fuel extraction and emissions. Only then will we be able to address this human-made disaster of climate change.

Simply put, Rasheed Walters is promoting a false narrative. His op- ed excoriating Democrats for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) begins by stating that US air pollution under President Trump was lower than other industrialized nations. Well, that’s great, but it has nothing to do with the aim of the IRA, which is to curb deadly greenhouse gas emissions to stop climate change. Moreover, Walters states that the IRA will only help China, which currently produces most of the world’s minerals needed to produce batteries. He conveniently ignores the fact that creating a domestic supply of those minerals is a key element of the IRA, which establishes tax credits to ensure that EV car batteries are produced domestically – and ethically – by increasing margins starting in 2024.

Walters lambastes Democrats for addressing the most important issue of our day and yet there is no other option, if we’re going to be able to continue to live on this planet.

The problem with “green hydrogen” is that it isn’t green. The utility-funded UMass Lowell study proposes using a mixture of natural gas and green hydrogen, which would still employ a known greenhouse gas-emitting fuel as an energy source.

The Home Energy Efficiency Team, or HEET, a local nonprofit, has come up with a better idea: GeoMicroDistricts, similar to what many college campuses use. These are networked geothermal systems that use underground pipes to carry water instead of gas and use heat pumps to heat or cool the water as needed. Both Natural Grid and Eversource have agreed to pilot this model and work has begun in Framingham to make this pilot a reality.

That’s a truly green solution: Gas companies selling their thermal management of water instead of gas.

Debora Hoffman