We are consumers of our planet

Kevin O"Brien was at it again on Wednesday, denying that humans have anything to do with global warming. (He finally did admit that there is an increase in the heat.)

I sent off a letter to the Plain Dealer, and it was published in today's paper. The title link goes to an online version that mixes together my letter plus one by Randy Cunningham. (Corrected soon, I hope.) Our two letters are headlined: "Why deny the abusive way we're treating our planet?"

My letter, as it appears in today's paper:

I see there is no swaying Kevin O'Brien. He has his opinions that global warming is a scare scam, and nothing is about to change his mind.

I ask him, though, what about global abuse? Can he possibly say that humans are not abusing the planet with their use-it-up philosophy? How did the word "consumer" ever get to be said with pride, meaning a person with rights to products and services?

I agree that a person who purchases things has rights, but using "consumer" instead of "customer" as a descriptive term gives credence to the notion that it is OK to use things up without a care for how they will be replaced.

A house is "consumed" by fire, and is but dust.

Our planet is being "consumed" by humans. If global warming is the wake-up call to create awareness that our actions have consequences, then the more press the better.