Population control aids environment

Ellen Goodman's column "Global warming debate avoids population growth" (Dec. 11) finally puts in print what should be obvious, but remains largely unspoken and unprinted. Mandated emission limits and money alone cannot prevent the self-destructive long-range effects of unsustainable human population growth.



We live on a small planet with a limited ability to rebound from the impact of human activities multiplied by our numbers. Population experts project about 2.5 billion more of us in just 40 years (from nearly 7 billion now to 9.5 billion in 2050). They also know how we could slow that growth if we chose to do so.



Goodman suggests the silence on population reflects unfounded fears. Population experts are not suggesting governments limit the freedom of families to decide their number of children. Rather, they suggest governments expand the freedom of families to decide their number of children.



Wherever women's freedom has been expanded by improved education, economic opportunities and access to family planning, families have freely decided to have numbers of children that would reduce population pressure on the planet.

EDWARD C. BROWN

Westfield



Sen. Lieberman a gutless wonder

What a bunch of gutless wonders our U.S. senators and representatives are, especially Joe Lieberman. They seem to be about to cave in to the health-care lobby by creating a plan that will compel individuals to buy insurance from private carriers, which would be a windfall for corporate interests, and a betrayal of the rest of us.



I would rather have no health-care bill passed than to see this golden goose presented to private insurance carriers, at our expense – making a bad situation worse. While there are those who worry about socialism, I suggest a much greater threat is fascism, in which big business rules and government is made almost irrelevant.



Nations such as the Scandinavian countries flourish under socialism, but Nazi Germany was fascist and I am not aware of any nation that has flourished under fascism. Each time we witness our elected representatives being bought out by big business - such as the insurance industry - we take another step toward fascism and away from democracy.



The scariest thing of all is that notwithstanding my active participation in the political process, for the first time in my almost 70 years, I feel helpless and irrelevant.



Time is running out. Those of us who want meaningful reform must make it clear to our elected representatives that while corporations provide them with money to finance their campaigns, we are the ones who actually vote and we want the same access to health-care in the United States that is enjoyed in every other developed nation.

--JIM PALERMO

--Southampton



Tobacco control needs steady funds

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., killing more than 400,000 people and costing $96 billion in health care bills each year, yet local tobacco control programs continue to suffer under decreased funding.

The report “A Broken Promise to Our Children: The 1998 State Tobacco Settlement 11 Years Later” released last week states that this year states will collect $25.1 billion in revenue from the tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes but are spending just 2.3 percent of it on tobacco prevention and cessation programs.

Research shows that smoking rates decrease when tobacco programs are fully funded, people are less sick and more aware of the dangers of smoking. In turn, health care costs are less and we as a community are more aware of the services available to smokers who wish to quit.

There are a lot of positive stories about people trying to quit smoking, but smokers still face immense challenges in their efforts to quit. We cannot compete with the big tobacco companies that spend $20 for every $1 we have in funding, however we can do our best to keep the community informed of the health dangers still imposed on our society by big tobacco.

--SARA MORIARTY

--Tobacco Free Community Partnership

--Springfield

Troop deployment raises new questions

I am shocked. President Barack Obama makes a speech about the troop deployment to Afghanistan and mentions a 18-month deadline to remove them.



OK. The next day Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say that was not what the president meant.



I've been in supervision for 25 years and if anyone totally contradicted what I said, there would be hell to pay. They are treating him like kid. He meant what he said.

--GENE O'BRIEN

--Westfield









