Boosting the bright side of apocalypse is a distraction

Jeff Jacoby’s Dec. 6 column on the benefits of climate change would be funny if it weren’t so dangerously shortsighted (“Climate change will bring blessings, too,’’ Opinion).

Although a single Category 5 hurricane would devastate Boston, Jacoby could say that its benefits would include helping citizens appreciate inland areas, hills, and mountains.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 6 meters of sea-level rise would submerge Back Bay and other low-lying areas, and 7 meters would cut the city off from the mainland of Massachusetts. Jacoby could point to how this would promote the use of ferries and create new beaches.

At a time when urgent action is needed to avoid the pressing threats to civilization presented by climate change, what benefit are we supposed to derive from Jacoby’s distracting argument?

Paul Lewis

Newton Centre

The writer is the author of “A Is for Asteroids, Z Is for Zombies: A Bedtime Book about the Coming Apocalypse.’’

Who can talk of trade-offs when so many millions would be displaced?

Jeff Jacoby never ceases to amaze me. He points out that one of the benefits of climate change is that Point Hope, Alaska’s tiny population (2016 estimate of 692) will be getting high-speed Internet.

Let’s see, a few hundred people in a remote corner of the world get high-speed Internet, while a few hundred million people around the globe are displaced by sea-level rise. That’s a tough choice, but I think the submersion of much of Bangladesh and Florida, not to mention islanders around the world, isn’t a good trade-off for better broadband in Alaska, but what do I know?

David Meyers

Amesbury

Irrationality is no match for the threats of global warming

Wednesday’s Globe provided a helpful contrast: Jeff Jacoby’s arguments regarding global warming’s benefits, “Climate change will bring blessings, too,’’ presented the exact kind of departure from reason that Scot Leigh described in his column on the same page, “The Republicans’ era of irrationality.’’

Lehigh is right that “those who don’t dwell in the realm of magical thinking must face . . . grim reality.’’

We live in dark times. Fortunately, Jacoby offers fodder for dark humor: Climate change will make more habitat for moose!

What delicious irony. Scientists have reported for years that moose are sick and dying due to global warming multiplying northern tick populations. Just two years ago, when she was a Republican senator from New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte was willing to discuss climate change facts with me and other concerned citizens. Running for reelection, she bemoaned the impact of climate change on New Hampshire’s iconic moose population and its valuable tourism industry.

Don’t worry. Maybe Shell Oil will build a wall against ticks so that moose can play and roam on the Arctic range. And if you clap real hard, Tinker Bell will prevent methane from leaking from the warming Arctic permafrost.

Judy Weiss

Brookline

The writer is a volunteer with the Boston chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Remember that even the upsides have their downsides

Jeff Jacoby is our Dr. Pangloss of climate change. He is pleased that rising temperatures will reduce the cost of heating homes. But what about air conditioning? It demands fossil fuel. The more air conditioners in use, the more carbon dioxide is sent into the atmosphere. And this only contributes to the demand for more air conditioning.

What we have here is a pure example of what we in engineering call “positive feedback,’’ a situation that breeds instability. You’ve experienced this if you’ve ever been in an auditorium where the loudspeaker and microphone are too close together. The effects aren’t pleasant.

A. David Wunsch

Belmont

The writer is a professor emeritus in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.