New ways of thinking about global warming

The other morning I found myself praying for our planet, our earth, but primarily for our precious, life-sustaining water. I learned that in the spring the city and the Northern Colorado Conservancy District plan to put the herbicide triclopyr in the Boulder Reservoir in order to combat the infestation of the Eurasian Watermilfoil (article in The Daily Camera, July 24, 2024, by Hannah Cohen).

Poison in our drinking and recreational waters seems a very bad idea to me and it will continue to be used “on an as-needed basis.” (City of Boulder Aquatic Nuisance Species. July 2024 Update). As usual, we are given many reassurances that it will be a very minimal amount and it will be harmless to humans. (“Triclopyr was reviewed and approved for targeted EWM control in the Boulder Reservoir by the city’s Integrated Pest Management Program.”

Surely there must be alternatives to helping control these weeds other than poisoning ourselves. (The N. Colo. Conservancy District is already applying this herbicide upstream of the reservoir, as noted in the Daily Camera article.)

For the past few years, the staff at the reservoir has been attempting to control the weeds by pulling them by hand (something every gardener knows) but their employees are very limited. What if several hundred concerned citizens showed up to pull these weeds? This would not only increase awareness about the difficulties we face with global warming but provide us with concrete ways we could help. Instead of feeling helpless, we could build community and participation. What about those weeds too deep for hands to pull? We could call on organizations that teach and certify scuba divers to tackle these areas. We need to involve the University of Colorado with its resources and scientific brain power to investigate these issues.

In short, we need new ways of thinking as to how we as humans will work with global warming and its manifestations. The old ways won’t work and in fact, are part of the problem.

— Ellen Stark, Boulder

Have you known a leopard to change its spots?

A recent Open Forum contributor said that she is leaving her so-called “tribe” (i.e., the Dems) and voting for Donald Trump because, she believes, RFK Jr.’s presence in Trump’s transition team will somehow work miracles in converting Trump into an environmentalist and anti-corporate watchdog. Talk about delusional thinking! Among the many things we’ve learned about Trump: He doesn’t actually listen to anyone’s advice (hence the mass exodus of cabinet members from his prior administration), that he believes climate change is a “Chinese hoax” (his words), that “wind turbines cause cancer,” that fossil fuels are “beautiful” (coal in particular) and that we should “drill, baby, drill.” As far as Trump’s “wisdom” in bringing RFK on board, his reason is readily apparent: He is desperately hoping to glom RFK’s minions into his fold to help him get re-elected. To the letter’s author: Have you ever known a leopard to change its spots? At least your “tribe” already believes in many of the objectives you aspire to, and has a demonstrated history of enacting laws and regulations in pursuit thereof … that is, on the rare occasions when Congressional Republicans do not block these efforts.

— Barry Aaron, Boulder

What is the carbon footprint of Buffs banner?

At 5 p.m. on Saturday afternoon and the small plane was still circling above CU’s Stadium, towing a “Buffalo Fans” banner. Something else unreadable from our edge-of-town home embellishes the rest of the banner. The droning sound is incessant, irritating, aggravating, interminable, relentless . . . (choose your own descriptor). It’s worse than any dental drill.

My single thought? How much gas is being burned to keep this ad airborne? Did anyone consider the CARBON FOOTPRINT and the alienation factor of such an action?

— Ann Cooper, Boulder