by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

The post on Energy Diets follows a very typical flaw in the argument used against reducing carbon emissions - that to do so is to reduce energy production.  Creating the emotionally wrenching dilemma of a choice between extinction and suicide is both cruel and incorrect.  What we can and must do is produce more "carbon free" energy.  Reducing emissions does not equate to reducing production.  As Amory Lovins always says, "we want hot showers and cold beer".  We don't need to consume less, and shouldn't expect developing countries to consume less either.  We just need to ensure (and set an example) that we reduce carbon emissions *while* producing as much energy as we need.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.