Views in brief

A radical in the Democratic Party

IN RESPONSE to "Causing trouble for Cuomo": This is the worst analysis of the election that I have seen yet, surprisingly. I would expect much better from Socialist Worker.

I took the campaign very seriously, much more than Miss Teachout, who was the chosen opposition by the mainstream press. Sound familiar? The New York Times did a total blackout on my primary campaign, as did NY1 and other media giants that controlled the flow of info on this election. Teachout, as she has said repeatedly, is a mainstream Democrat. I am a radical in the Democratic Party. Teachout would not even take a position on the occupation of Gaza, much to the delight to her PR firm at the Times.

Even after I became the first political candidate in New York history to be arrested in the middle of a campaign for videotaping police misconduct and spent 30 hours in Bronx central booking, the Times found it of no interest. Miss Teachout's vague complaints about corruption in government was as far as the Times wanted to take its readers.

We had an economic plan that was written by Richard Wolff. We had a criminal justice plan that would put Wall Street criminals and bankers in jail. Our message was suppressed by the media on the same level as Eugene V. Debs' campaign was when the media, when they wanted to talk about a reformer, focused on Theodore Roosevelt.

That is what your article has done here. You have focused on a vague reformer rather than someone who is has spent his entire life fighting for social, racial and economic justice. You have chosen Teddy Roosevelt over Eugene V. Debs.
Randy Credico, New York City

The causes of climate change

IN RESPONSE to "Meat eating kills the planet": In his comment, Jeff Melton pointed to the importance of livestock production in the debate over global warming. Unfortunately, the estimate he cites that 51 percent of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) are attributable to livestock is almost certainly wrong.

This estimate first (and apparently uniquely) appeared in a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report. However, it is based on the scientifically invalid assumption that all of the CO2 exhaled by livestock contributes to GHG accumulation.

This fails to take into consideration that essentially all of the carbon exhaled by livestock comes from pasturage and other agricultural sources. These plant sources have very recently fixed this carbon photo-synthetically from the atmosphere, as noted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

As a result, the net change in CO2 due to livestock is close to zero. This makes livestock qualitatively different from cars, for example, which rely typically on fossil fuels whose carbon has been locked within the earth for millennia. Burning fossil fuel results in a net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. Eating this year's grass, or last year's soybeans, does not.

Starting from a stronger scientific foundation, the 2013 UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that livestock contribute about 15 percent of the total human-induced GHG emissions, largely from methane and nitrous oxide. The FAO estimate includes both direct and indirect effects (such as deforestation). This means that livestock is a significant source of GHG pollution, but still substantially less than fossil fuel use in aggregate.

While on the surface, this dispute appears to be merely a technical issue, it has important political implications as well. Since climate change deniers still hold significant influence within the broad population, it is important for us to base our arguments on the best available science. We should not leave ourselves open to criticisms that distract attention from the main issues--global warming, its real causes, and the necessary political and economic solutions.

The bottom line: Livestock contributes to global warming, but the principal cause of climate change is fossil fuel extraction and burning. You cannot let the energy industry off the hook--not to mention the capitalist system as a whole--simply by eating less meat.
Rick Greenblatt, San Diego

Capitalism is killing the planet

IN RESPONSE to "Meat eating kills the planet": It is definitely the case that the production of animal flesh and secretions for consumption is extremely resource-intensive, contributing significantly to the degradation of the ecology on which human civilization depends. But does that mean individual consumption is to blame?

My own road to veganism began after learning about the 2010 United Nations report showing that animal agriculture accounts for more global warming potential than the entire transportation sector, due to the much higher potency of methane and nitrous oxide, and the inherent resource inefficiency of animal-based foods. If you apply the basic principals of mass and energy conservation, it's clear that it is more efficient to grow and eat plants than it is to grow plants, feed them to animals, then eat the animals.

I initially bought into the logic that environmentalists should change their diet for these reasons. However, this is not a logic that anti-capitalist revolutionaries should be promoting. The vegetarian and vegan movements are influenced heavily by this liberal ideology--indeed, even the UN report urged individuals to change their diet--and it is the responsibility of anti-capitalists to focus the conversation on pushing for changes at the point of production.

We should be demanding the end of subsidies for animal agriculture, better wages and working conditions for slaughterhouse workers, holding agribusiness accountable for ecological damage, etc. Accepting the idea than individual consumers are to blame leads us down the path of shaming people for driving or having children.

To be sure, there are reasons apart from ecology to leave animals off one's dinner plate--that's another debate entirely. But we should be very clear that it is not meat-eating that kills the planet. Capitalism kills the planet.
L.D. Royer, Berkeley, Calif.

The last escalation in Ukraine

IN RESPONSE to "The toll rises in Ukraine's civil war": This is a very illuminating article, and it's especially valuable to hear the truth about all the major protagonists in this frightening conflict.

I have been listening to Stephen Cohen on Democracy Now! and reading his articles in The Nation and wherever else they appear. I find one of his points really scary: NATO seems hell-bent on going ahead with major military moves into Ukraine. Russian military doctrine calls for retaliating against overwhelming conventional forces by use of tactical nuclear weapons. This would lower the threshold everywhere against nuclear war, not only in Eastern Europe, but also with regard to Pakistan vs. India, Israel vs. choose-your-victim, etc.

Another major problem that Cohen points out is that there is no effective voice or movement for exposing the lies coming out of Washington and Brussels. We no longer have a ban-the-bomb movement, or any other way of mobilizing massively against the most irresponsible war machines the world has ever known. The Washington/Brussels propaganda is unanswered anywhere except in alternative outlets, and I suspect that leaders of the peace movement, such as it is, are totally duped.

It's way past time to organize teach-ins, rallies, etc. to try to get the truth out, and I only hope it's not too late. Once the nukes start flying, we're all in real trouble. The destructive effects of nuclear war(s) would dwarf those of anthropogenic global warming.
Chuck Cairns, Ray Brook, N.Y.