To the Editor:

In his April 10 letter about fossil fuels [“Recent Letter Comparing Tobacco, Fossil Fuels Full of Paranoia, Misinformation, Falsehoods”], Lewis A. Edge, Jr. cites questionable data about electric cars, and, along with some name-calling, takes exception to statements I didn’t actually make.

It is possible to love the mobility, power, comfort, and convenience fossil fuels afford, and yet also realize that the consequences of collectively burning those fuels is a destabilizing of the world’s climate, shorelines, and food supply. Inaction continues to force us deeper into this quandary of how to reconcile present lifestyle with future consequence. Mr. Edge’s term, “duplicitous,” characterizes the trap we’re in — nurturing our children’s futures while burning fuels that undermine that future.

Though Mr. Edge rightly points out that smoking, which I compare to fossil fuel use, has essentially no social benefit, there is much consumption of fossil fuels that fits that description — driving overly heavy and inefficient cars, unnecessary trips, overheated or overcooled buildings, inefficient lights illuminating unused spaces. Once one becomes aware of the downside of pouring climate-changing gases into the atmosphere (we’ve increased atmospheric concentrations a whopping 40 percent thus far) its easy to identify ways to reduce consumption.

In some ways, burning fossil fuels is far worse than smoking. Unlike the largely self-inflicted impacts of smoking, the consequences of burning fossil fuels cannot be undone in a generation or two, but are cumulative and persistent, impacting countless generations to come. It is the essentially irrevocable nature of the changes being wrought to oceans and atmosphere that makes action to shift course so urgent.

It’s important to note that the government didn’t force anyone to stop smoking, but rather made it increasingly inconvenient to do so. If any “forcing” is being done, it is the collective forcing of the climate in a risky direction and the forcing of future generations to deal with it.

Phasing in a price on carbon, using an approach that eases financial burden on lower incomes, will encourage advances in alternative technologies and speed their adoption. When disposing of exhaust in the atmosphere is no longer free, the freedom to consume will be reconnected with a responsibility for consequence. We’ll value these remarkable but flawed fuels more and use them less.

For one who grew up in the afterglow of America’s World War II victory, it’s baffling to watch the nation react to the threat of climate change with defeatism and denial. We could sit around waiting for the “as yet unidentified” perfect energy source, and hope that some other town or state or nation will make the first move. But some problems are so great that you have to take them on with the technologies and resourcefulness at hand, knowing that we’ll develop even better tools as we go along. And we have to remember that the government played a crucial and economically beneficial role in the nation’s past successes, and that it will necessarily play a vital role in this one as well.

Stephen Hiltner

North Harrison Street