Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I have enjoyed nordic skiing for the past 55 years and have been dreading for several years the article in the Star Tribune "Making snow, from the groundwater up" (Dec. 12). Most skiers recognize that our ski season is getting shorter and warmer because of our changing climate. There are a few metro ski areas that have snow-making equipment to satisfy the needs of members of the ski community who are quite happy to do laps on any type of snow. Mother Nature has been very stingy this year, with December showing barely any snow so far and temperatures hitting 50s some days. Most skiers know that this is the new normal. The Star Tribune article states that using groundwater to make snow is not sustainable, nor is drawing down lakes to feed our skiing habit. In addition, it requires a tremendous amount of energy to run the snow-makers and machines to move and groom the snow.

Many skiers spend upward of a $1,000 to $2,000 for ski equipment, waxes and clothing, but how many skiers would agree that the current scheme is not sustainable? Would we be willing to pay a ski fee to cover all the snow-making and environmental costs? Perhaps we should use our energy and dollars to lobby for climate mitigation so that our children may perhaps be able to one day thank us for doing our part to save some remnant of a true Minnesota winter.

Mike Menzel, Edina

•••

To follow up the exchange of opinions about individual or social responsibility for climate change ("Yes, Virginia, you can trim a tree and still fight climate change," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 12, and "Pollution is our responsibility," Readers Write, Dec. 14): Project Drawdown and others have estimated, as well as I understand them, that about 25% to 30% of the needed drawdown actions for our current crisis can potentially be accomplished by voluntary action by individuals and households reducing their own carbon footprints. At least that would be so if we all agreed to do it, and all acted concurrently. That's a very big and unlikely "if." Obviously, the personal carbon footprint only gets us an inadequate part of the way to a desirable climate future.

The balance must come through our personal choices to influence government policy at every level, nonprofit initiatives, corporate choices and technological innovation. Our role as individuals is certainly to influence our neighbors by modeling the changes needed, but we could say it is at least three times more important to join in shared efforts to persuade and pressure corporations like British Petroleum and high-CO2-emitting nations, like ours, to phase down and out on oil, gas and coal use.

The causes of the climate crisis are rooted in both personal and social decisions, and so must the solutions be.

Clay Oglesbee, Northfield, Minn.

•••

I hate to be a climate summit party pooper, but the bottom line is that the new deal being celebrated is not legally binding and can't, on its own, force any country to act. History has shown that if a country isn't forced to act, it usually won't. How do I know that? We just had the hottest year on record, with global fossil-fuel emissions soaring to record highs. We had agreed not to go there. Here we are.

Doug Williams, Robbinsdale

Reading the piece regarding the University of Wisconsin regents surrendering to threats of funding cuts by the state Legislature is shocking ("UW regents flip, back Vos deal," Dec. 15). The Wisconsin Speaker of the Assembly Robin Vos has decided that his personal beliefs must stifle free thought at a world-class university. (He said he wants to "eliminate these cancerous DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] practices on UW campuses.") This Sen. Tommy Tubervillian move by Vos — imposing one's personal beliefs in a fashion that threatens an entire system — is lamentable on so many levels. Where were Vos' fellows to prevent such a travesty? What systemic deficiencies allowed an institution dedicated to open, intellectual exchange to be dictated by crass economics?

The University of Minnesota statement on DEI includes this: "We believe that diversity and equity require a commitment to social justice. Dismantling white supremacy and entrenched institutional inequality in higher education demands actively working to promote inclusive research and learning environments." As a retired physician, I can state with authority: This doesn't sound "cancerous" to me!

Here's a message to high school seniors in Wisconsin: Remember reciprocity. You are able to pay Minnesota in-state tuition rates to attend our world-class university. And, by enrolling here, you won't have to worry about your learning experience being stifled or prejudiced by some bizarre political ideology.

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

I fully agree with Lawrence Jacobs in his piece that "Too much 'sunshine' could burn U" (Opinion Exchange, Dec. 14).

The vast majority of the best external candidates for the next University of Minnesota president will not apply in an open search. It is too risky for them in their current positions. Those with the least risk in an open search are internal candidates, who sometimes are very strong candidates. I know this to be true from my former role as a U vice president and the numerous people I knew at the U and beyond who became university presidents. The desire to get the best candidates possible in university presidential searches produces the same need for confidentiality as searches for CEOs of major companies. Hiring a great U president is much more complex than the open process for choosing the next Minnesota flag. For example, other states are not competing for our flag. Outside search firms can be very helpful, but the process is still challenged when the search committee and the Board of Regents want to interview multiple finalists in an open search.

Serving as U president is a complex and difficult position that requires multiple talents. It is unfortunate that "sunshine" on the search will reduce the chances of creating the strongest candidate pool for our next president.

C. Eugene Allen, Oakdale

Thank you for the excellent article "Hmong American activist, speaker kidnapped and killed in Colombia" on the brilliant Hmong comedian Tou Ger Xiong. The first Hmong refugees arrived in Minnesota in 1976. Xiong's arrival a few years later gave his people the chance to laugh, be normal and give the rest of us Minnesotan-Americans an opportunity to learn their culture the easy way, through laughter.

I was surprised at the placement of this article. John Rimarcik, the restaurateur, who died at age 84, was on the front page. Xiong — far more significant and influential — was on the local page. Even if he had not been more significant, the drama of a murder in Columbia should at least meet somebody's standard of what's newsworthy over death at 84. Note that the St. Paul Pioneer Press put Xiong's death on the front page.

Kathleen Vellenga, St. Paul

I just returned to the land of 10,000 lakes from Florida and was delighted to read about Stearns County's liquor history ("Prohibition farmers kept booze flowing," Dec. 10).

My father, Melvin, grew up on New Munich-area farms, and proudly admitted that his family always put aside a "few bushels" for home brew for personal use and Gemütlichkeit.

And during the Depression he equally confessed that the parish priest allowed that a few gallons could be sold … so long as the price charged could not exceed $3 per gallon, since more than that would be the sin of greed. Ein Prosit!

John Ehlert, Sarasota, Fla.