Guardian Weekly Letters, 25 August 2017

We must get more active

In his article about climate change, David Runciman states an oft-expressed thought: “It’s far from clear what difference any individual action will make” (4 August). It seems people take it to heart. I have many friends, for example, who say they are concerned about climate change or the environment in general but will drive a big car five or 10km to buy a cup of coffee they can make at home.

It is a line for hypocritical “climate champions” who are afraid or too vain to adapt to the reality they intellectually know. To turn around climate change, we have to turn around our lifestyles to match what the ecosystems can sustain. We have to learn what it means to change lifestyles to live within the physical limits of the planet. We have to learn what it means to turn off the air conditioning in a hot climate.

If you don’t get out of the car and start walking, or riding a bicycle, you do not believe how much your health and attractiveness improve as a result of the simple exercise. When you start using active transport you realise how beautiful an area is, or at least how full of potential beauty it is – you become engaged with what and who is near you. While walking you start relationships with the environment and others, who are also walking. Communities are built with small acts like this.

Individual actions will, at the least, bring good health and stronger communities. Many together will save the world.
Anne H Outwater
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Winning hearts and minds

The comment piece by Nicky Hawkins about changing minds on breastfeeding (11 August) has parallels for me in my struggle to share my fear and concern about climate change with those who are less convinced or not interested. I have sometimes tried to convince them with facts and arguments but, as Hawkins says, this often backfires and makes them more entrenched. In any case, most people are already aware of the facts and probably have already picked the low-hanging fruit in terms of changing light bulbs etc.

The difficult part is making deeper changes in our way of life. Here it is important to recognise that we all feel guilty and hypocritical in our attempts to balance our personal needs with reducing our emissions.

I am coming to the conclusion that the best contribution I can make is simply to share my beliefs in a positive way without making the other person feel guilty. The question is: is this enough?
Martin Mansell
Lochwinnoch, UK

Clean energy is needed

Electric cars: They’ll change the world (Leader comment, 11 August). For the better we hope, despite enriching “undeserving despots” who control the reserves of exotic materials needed for their batteries. Then “the dream goes further than that”, imagining self-driving cars that will never hit anyone.

But where will the electricity come from? Transportation currently accounts for almost half of our energy consumption. The present plan for electricity generation relies in large part on fracked natural gas, moving the albeit lesser fossil fuel pollution from tail pipe to smoke stack. In part, a really sustainable transportation system will depend on huge investment in wind and solar power to charge the batteries.

Finally, the Guardian’s futuristic vision invokes electrically powered bicycles to provide for our independence when the private car becomes a public utility. Sounds good, but what about human-powered bicycles?
Ian Stokes
Richmond, Vermont, US

Twitter is not to blame

Having spent half of my 74 years in Australia, I can understand the idea that Twitter was responsible for the rise of Donald Trump (Reply, 11 August), but it’s not accurate.

It’s been well documented that mainstream US media gave Trump more free airtime than they did to any other candidate, and by a huge margin. The explanation: Trump is entertainment, and that translates into money.

It’s also been documented that media devoted more airtime to Hillary Clinton’s emails than to all other issues. After three decades of airing grotesque Republican trashing of Clinton, this final blow had traction. Post-election surveys have shown that much of the vote for Trump was generated by feelings hostile to Clinton. This fact seems a much better explanation for the election outcome than Twitter.
Felix Prael
San Diego, California, US

Briefly

• In his youth Donald J Trump went to great lengths to avoid participating in a land war in Asia (US to ‘protect allies’ from North Korea, 4 August). Let us hope his sentiments have not changed.
Robin Wass
Point Leamington, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

• Whistle-stopping his way through South America (18 August), vice-president Mike Pence touched down in Colombia for a photo-op with president Juan Manuel Santos, passing on a “stern” message for Nicolás Maduro next door: “[Trump] does what he says, says what he means” – a la the The Fixx’s 1983 radio hit. Alas, the gist was forgotten: “One thing leads to another.” With North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Mexico and Canada (and now Colombia) on his bad-list du jour, here’s hoping that this bellicosity isn’t contagious.
RM Fransson
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, US

Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com