To the Editor:
Re “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore,” by Matthew T. Huber (Opinion guest essay, May 12):
It is ironic, dangerous and sad that this writer says the biggest crisis humans have ever faced should no longer be a campaign topic in America. Extreme climate events like insidious fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and storms are very damaging and real! Lives and livelihoods are extinguished.
Yet Dr. Huber views climate change discussions as “yet another issue fueling polarization.” In light of looming global disasters, is political polarization our biggest worry?
Instead, news of our distressed climate needs to be in the headlines daily. It needs to be widely broadcast because it is real and people need to be informed. Many other regions of the world have moved past the talk of climate toward serious mitigation measures. America needs to join in.
Sally Courtright Albany, N.Y.
To the Editor:
As a mother of two young children, I believe that it is simply disqualifying in 2026 for a candidate not to mention climate. Matthew T. Huber may be correct that we can fight climate change without mentioning the word “climate,” but is that the kind of leadership we want in office? The kind that avoids naming a problem and is incapable of making the connections for people about climate change’s effects: poor air quality, health impacts, supercharged storms, skyrocketing energy costs, cities running out of water and homeowners being priced out of or denied home insurance?
People are sick of the rampant corruption of the current administration — where former chemical executives and lobbyists now run the E.P.A.’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and where committees work behind closed doors to revoke the endangerment finding, the legal foundation of countless health-protective rules.
No doubt candidates should run smart campaigns that connect with their districts, but make no mistake, climate change has already touched every corner of our country. Candidates who can’t call it out are doing themselves, and all of us, a disservice.
Ali Simpson Bedford, N.Y. The writer is the senior manager for field campaigns for Moms Clean Air Force.
To the Editor:
I agree that this 2026 election is about pocketbook issues: rising prices, cost of living, ICE, restoring our constitutional system, getting us out of useless wars.
Democrats should take care of those issues, demonstrate competent governance and then slowly introduce more progressive issues after the 2028 election when they have built up credit with the voters. You can’t go too far too fast, as President Joe Biden and company did.
Bruce Higgins San Diego
To the Editor:
The argument that progressives shouldn’t talk about climate change because it doesn’t have strong bipartisan support is backward: They should be talking about it to build that very support. The retort nowadays is that affordability should be the goal, not clean energy, but that too misses the point. For the first time, solar and energy storage are the cheapest way to lower our utility bills. Clean energy and affordable energy are synonyms.
Climate change may not rank among voters’ top priorities at the polls, but energy affordability does. It is up to Democrats to explain to voters that those are the same things. Polling from the Environmental Voter Project has found that while most Americans don’t view it as an electoral issue, we think about climate change more than we think about abortion, immigration and gun violence.
Not every candidate needs to lead with climate, but some must if the broad political support we need is ever to grow.
Jake Schwartz Washington The writer is the federal campaigns manager for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
When Anti-Latino Talk Turns Deadly
To the Editor:
Re “White Drivers Got a Warning. Latino Drivers Got Detained” (Opinion video, nytimes.com, April 29):
When the highest levels of our government spew anti-immigrant rhetoric and condone racial profiling, the consequences can be life-threatening.
In 2008, a group of Long Island teenagers killed an Ecuadorean immigrant, Oswaldo Lucero, in a horrific, racially motivated attack — a crime that evokes chilling parallels to the present day.
Before Mr. Lucero was murdered, local Suffolk County leaders went on record mocking sanctuary cities and threatening to shoot Latino immigrants. The Police Department was notorious for looking the other way when Latinos were threatened or harassed.
Mr. Lucero was killed more than 17 years ago, but the conditions that led to his death have persisted. And while the United States has a long history of anti-Latino violence — including the 2019 massacre of 23 people in a Texas Walmart — recent policies have worsened the hostility toward Latinos.
ICE agents have been emboldened by both the president and the Supreme Court to arrest people off the street solely for how they look or the language they speak. Local police departments have been incentivized to work with immigration officials under 287(g) programs, colluding to racially profile and arbitrarily detain people.
This state-sponsored discrimination and demonization of Latinos opens the door to violence. We’ve seen it in Mr. Lucero’s case, and we’re seeing it now as hate crimes against Latinos and immigrants increase.
We know where this leads, and we can’t wait for the next tragedy to act.
Delia Addo-Yobo Rafaela Uribe Ms. Addo-Yobo is an attorney at the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center. Ms. Uribe is an attorney at LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
The Negative Effects of School Closings
To the Editor:
Re “Schools Facing Painful Choices as Number of Children Shrinks” (The Upshot, front page, May 11):
Facing falling enrollment numbers, many districts are closing schools. But their assumptions about school closures are wrong and could have catastrophic effects.
The Upshot noted, “Closing school buildings can save money.” But a new study of closures across California found that, on average, closure did not improve a district’s finances. Other studies also show that closure-related savings are typically negligible.
This isn’t surprising. Teachers and administrators usually aren’t let go during closure and are instead reassigned to other schools, and students can require longer, more expensive bus routes. Schools that receive students may need expansion. And some students leave the district for private or charter schools, reducing state and federal aid.
Meanwhile, closure can harm academic progress. Test scores tend to decline, while absenteeism and behavioral issues tend to increase, perhaps because closure can increase students’ anxiety and disrupt relationships with classmates and teachers. Longer term, closure leads to lower rates of college enrollment and employment and lower earnings.
Research has shown that when it comes to school size, there is no magic number. In fact, many students benefit from smaller classes.
I’m not arguing that we should never close a school. But falling enrollment, in and of itself, isn’t a compelling reason to do so.
Mara Casey Tieken New Gloucester, Maine The writer is a professor of education at Bates College.
The post Climate Change as a 2026 Campaign Issue appeared first on New York Times.
