Letters to the Editor | Sept. 7, 2023

The comments expressed by Elizabeth Eisenstadt Evans in her recent op-ed on Brandywine Creek, and a letter to the editor by Barbara Kaufman, echo what I hear from many who talk to me as an environmental scientist and educator. I cannot say it is unjustified, but to those who grieve the blows that nature has been dealt by human hands, I say there’s reason to hope and to act. I am encouraged to see that many of our streams and rivers, including Brandywine Creek, are far healthier today than they were 50 to 100 years ago. Conditions that led rivers such as the Schuylkill to burn brought much-needed attention to the compromised health of our fresh waters and helped galvanize the environmental movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

While there’s more to be done to fix old and new problems, many of our streams and rivers have benefited greatly from decades of local, state, and federal protections and investments, and some are now teeming with aquatic life. Even the beavers have returned to the back doors of Boathouse Row on the Schuylkill, which as reported in The Inquirer, is in better shape than the public realizes. If we were to look back at the damage once done, celebrate the public’s successful response two or three generations ago, and engage as individuals in freshwater stewardship, I believe it would help us manage our grief and give us the confidence to walk toward a future we otherwise might believe is gone forever.

John K. Jackson, senior research scientist, Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale

It is an all-too-common insult for those who support a woman’s right to choose, but tell me, who are the real “baby killers”? Is it the medical specialists who provide reasonable health care for women? Or is it the legislators who refuse to enact sensible gun laws, resulting in our children being slaughtered on a daily basis?

Lita Indzel Cohen, retired member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Philadelphia

A recent business story, “Why some Vanguard investors miss the old days,” shared the disappointment of long-standing Vanguard Group customers who, despite their loyalty and large balances, are left wondering why the level of service isn’t what it used to be. I used to be a Vanguard customer, and I know that feeling. I was baffled and dismayed when, in December 2022, Vanguard abruptly withdrew from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. This is a group of large asset managers like Vanguard (which has $8 trillion under management), committed to the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and to supporting investment that is aligned with net zero emissions. In other words, raising the issue of greenhouse gas emissions with the corporations in which Vanguard and its peers are leading investors. Now more than ever, big corporations need to be pro-climate. Why isn’t Vanguard?

Dana Robinson, Lansdowne, fdanarobinson@gmail.com

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.