No hope for Barrier Reef
In 1972 The Club of Rome, in its report The Limits to Growth, said “any pollution control system based on instituting controls only when some harm is already detected will probably guarantee that the problem will get much worse before it gets better”.
The truth of that statement has become more and more evident in the years since it was written. It may be an understatement in the article Barrier Reef faces a new battle (15 April) to say that climate change “is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come”. More boldly, you might think the problem, probably guaranteed to get much worse, has already put the reef on a fast one-way path to destruction. It would take an optimist to hope for pollution controls that could slow, stop or even reverse bleaching of the coral and other damage caused by climate change. The attitudes and actions of the Australian government certainly provide no basis for any such hope.
Lawrie Bradly
Surrey Hills, Victoria, Australia
All animals deserve to live
Lucy Siegle’s article, Ethical living: the eco guide to eating meat (8 April), while highlighting the brilliant film Cowspiracy, assumes a troubling and inhumane definition of “ethical”. In making her argument that humans should eat fewer ruminants, but nonetheless may continue to eat other animals, she states, “Not all animals are equal, ethically.” This attributes no ethical value to the taking of an animal’s life. Is the only reason to spare another being’s life to try to reduce our carbon footprint?
Siegle’s article fails to recognise the widely acknowledged understanding that all animals experience pain and suffering. We should not condone the slaughtering of animals by patting ourselves on our progressive backs for how we’re doing our bit to reduce greenhouse gases. Instead, we should actually stop eating chicken, beef or salmon, recognise each animal’s right to live free of human-inflicted suffering, and enjoy other sources of protein. Now that would be truly ethical.
Alison Kosinski
San Francisco, California, US
• It does the planet a disservice when those seeking to defend it are as scientifically illiterate as those who trash it. Before composing her anti-cow manifesto, Lucy Siegle should surely have asked herself where the carbon in all that beef came from. It started in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, became plant matter through the miracle of photosynthesis, and then cow matter when the cow ate the plant. Even in the worst case where the cow is incinerated and all its carbon returned to the atmosphere, this would still be a carbon-neutral process. Yes, methane is a worse greenhouse gas but this is irrelevant because it quickly reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere, reverting to CO2.
Cows are actually better than carbon-neutral. Much of the plant matter created by photosynthesis is in the form of cellulose, a compound that we cannot digest and for which we have few uses.
Rather than let it rot back to CO2 it can be fed to cows where the miracle of ruminant digestion converts it into useful products: meat, leather etc. The only regulatory action needed is to prevent cows being fed the parts of the plant, notably starch, that can serve as human food and that is bad for the cows. Then only vegetarians opposed to meat for ideological reasons could have any objections.
Graham Andrews
Spokane, Washington, US
• The article about cattle in the section Ethical living leaves one confused. It seems to imply that cows should be drastically reduced in number. Do vegetarians really have half the carbon footprint of omnivores? Unless they are vegans they are probably eating a lot of dairy products, much of which come from cows. At one to two uddersful of milk a day, it would take a large number of cows to produce the equivalent of the hundreds of pounds of meat obtained from one steer. It is said that well-managed pastoral land itself provides a carbon sink offset equivalent to the gas generated by cattle grazing it and that dry-land pasture is best maintained by animal husbandry, important for poorer nations. With the drying and degradation of arable land, viz California’s central valley, is it feasible that the world population become vegan? May we have the full story, please.
Anthony Walter
Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Keep Poland in the spotlight
I am writing to congratulate you on the excellent article about Poland by Christian Davies (4 March). To many of my Polish friends here in Australia, the situation is hard to comprehend and is distressing.
The Law and Justice party, in power since last October, is dragging Poland down. To make things worse, their propaganda reaches many Polish communities in Australia and the US.
In Australia, we watch Polish news via the SBS TV channel. The broadcast comes from the National Polish News TV station in Warsaw: the ruling party’s mouthpiece.
I have lived in Australia for over 40 years, and frequently visit Poland. What I observe there grieves me. The nation shows signs of being bitterly divided. People seem reluctant to talk openly or express their opinions.
Thank goodness for the progressive and courageous Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza and its editor-in-chief Adam Michnik.
Margaret Loeffler
Fremantle, Western Australia
Sceptical about book review
The book review about atheism (1 April) showed a complete misunderstanding of the ancient school of scepticism. Far from promoting atheism, the ancient sceptics were equally sceptical of opposing points of view, so that scepticism about religion was balanced by equally strong scepticism about atheism. They attempted to undermine atheism by pointing out various problems about sense perception that allegedly make beliefs about the physical world as uncertain as belief about the gods.
Another impression given – that Socrates was an atheist – is preposterous since, for better or for worse, Socrates affirmed immortality, denied the validity of materialistic explanations and composed a prayer to the Greek gods.
Stephen Porsche
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
In praise of old vinyl
I replaced my old record player a week ago, its arm having been dislocated by an inquisitive grandson about 20 years ago. Within nanoseconds of mounting a record of JS Bach’s beautiful flute sonatas, my eyes fell upon Hanna Hanra’s opinion piece entitled: I love my vinyl. So why don’t I play it? (22 April).
In a recent ABC TV programme entitled Music on the Brain, a Melbourne neurophysiologist placed headphones over the ears of patients with dementia, playing tunes remembered and loved from childhood. Within seconds their faces were transformed from passive immobility into beautiful smiles, and they were able to converse intelligibly for hours afterwards.
In an even more remarkable experiment, a person with severe Parkinson’s disease, barely able to shuffle an inch forwards, gradually steadied and extended his gait, and finished by dancing with his nurse!
Approaching my 89th year, I have a chest full of old vinyl records, which I hope might keep my cerebral neurons sparking. If music therapy becomes established for some neurological and mental disorders, vinyl salesmen would be delighted.
Bryan Furnass
Canberra, Australia
Briefly
• Thanks to the dear mother of the disabled boy for sharing her terrifying yet so wonderful experience of love (What I’m really thinking, 1 April). And thanks to the Guardian Weekly for having included that column.
Jean-Marie Gillis
Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium
• Regardless of the free movement of people, I have grave doubts about the morality of systematic recruitment of expensively educated healthcare workers from poorer countries to the UK, as reported in your 15 April article on junior doctors. If our society is not training and retaining enough essential workers, it must reorganise to correct the shortage, and not by raiding poorer states.
Muiris de Bhulbh
Leixlip, Ireland
• Suzanne Goldenberg said it perfectly: “If people really care about climate change, they should stay at home” (11 April). Unfortunately our day-to-day minds become bored and we think we need to do silly things and make up “bucket lists” as if somehow jostling with a bunch of other idiots taking selfies at Angkor Wat is going to give us fulfilment.
Would that we could just “be” where we are; then we would have no need to travel the earth and ruin it.
J Doland Nichols
Goonellabah, NSW, Australia
Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com
