Readers write: Electric cars vs. sustainable mobility

Letters to the editor for the October 18, 2021 weekly magazine. Readers discuss talking to strangers and electric vehicles.

Staff

Overcoming suspicion

I have just read Shelley Scott’s letter to the editor about the Aug. 16 Q&A with Joe Keohane on his book, “The Power of Strangers: The Benefits of Connecting in a Suspicious World.” That same interview made me want to read the book, which I am now doing, and I am finding the ideas are enriching my life.

I understand Ms. Scott’s concerns about the dangers of speaking with strangers. I grew up in Chicago and lived in Boston. I have known uncomfortable confrontational moments, and the city tradition of not looking strangers in the eye. I am not deep into this book, and find it cannot be rushed. But in flipping ahead, I found a specific reply to her concerns on page 224, where Keohane says he understands that a tall white man could be treated differently and he isn’t suggesting anyone start, push, or continue in situations that make them uncomfortable. There may well be more replies in the book.  

I find myself looking for ways to make simple contacts authentic and more meaningful, even if very quick. I now live in rural Maine, and recently at a restaurant I told two strangers (who asked) some good places to visit in my area. I felt a warmth in the conversation, and that it was more than just directions jotted on a paper napkin ring.

Marilyn Crowley
Harrison, Maine

EVs aren’t risk-free

The Aug. 30 cover story headlined “The electric car age: When will it arrive?” begs the question: Who is waiting for this so-called revolution and why? I would prefer to see an analysis of the pros and cons of transitioning to electric vehicles.

Unfortunately the mainstream press has largely avoided any discussion of the negative environmental impacts or national security implications of a technology that relies heavily on rare earth minerals and substances, like lithium, that are now sourced mainly from a few foreign countries.

Equally troubling is the common assumption that electric vehicles represent a cleaner, greener technology. But electricity is only as clean as the technology that produces it, a large part of which involves burning coal and other fossil fuels. And has anyone considered the capacity of the electrical power grid to accommodate such an increase in usage? This and many other questions need to be answered.

Jennifer Quinn
Gate City, Virginia

Sustainable mobility

The Aug. 30 cover story headlined “The electric car age: When will it arrive?” asks the wrong question. With 50% to 60% of U.S. urban areas dedicated to the personal vehicle (roads, parking, and driveways), we should be asking, “The sustainable mobility age: When will it arrive?”

Shifting to electric cars simply shifts the burden to the power grid, which still relies largely on burning coal and gas, and is vulnerable to power outages. 

Electric cars do not resolve our community’s urgent social justice issues for those who cannot afford vehicles or who are unable to drive. They do not alleviate our growing urban heat islands and stormwater runoff, which are both exacerbated by climate change. And they do not solve our public safety issues to reduce pedestrian and cyclist deaths and injuries. We can choose a better path forward by de-emphasizing the role of the personal vehicle and prioritizing other modes of mobility.

Catlow Shipek
Tucson, Arizona

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.