'Pollution' a term for campaign rhetoric

Mr. Roland G. Ley's letter of March 2 rightfully calls for less partisanship and more conscious consideration of the problem(s) of climate change. However, there is very little bona fide evidence or logic in most of the rhetoric.

It remains to be demonstrated that there is a "global pollution problem" for a number of reasons. The most formidable may be mammoth ignorance about our planet. One thing we do know is that the Earth is not, nor has it ever been, in some "pristine" state. Since it was formed, the Earth has been constantly changing, sometimes gently, and at other times violently. Thus, to try to direct the future state of the Earth may be beyond our abilities. On the other hand, humankind must act responsibly in all things, including its own progress; such is required by even the most basic morality and ethical practice.

Pollution, a convenient term that implies very much but describes very little, is not restricted to anthropogenic activity. Pre-human pollution was, obviously, prolific, massive and occasionally catastrophic. Galactic collisions, tectonic mechanisms, internal dispersion of core heat, alternate ice ages and warm periods all left their traces, but the basic geology of the Earth remains something of a mystery.

Nonetheless, politicians enlist "scientists" of one flavor or another to augment their campaigns for office. Nearly always their positions center on industrial activity related to "the market." In every campaign I have knowledge of, improving "the market" has been offered as an excuse for some of the most idiotic legislative suggestions.

It is time for the voters to cast aside the politicians and their funding sources who seem to have no other purpose in considering "pollution" beyond another campaign enthusiasm. Half the campaign funds could be better spent in true scientific investigation rather than in campaign rhetoric.

Joseph Haggin

Arlington Heights