As somewhat of a climate activist, I see that a letter to the editor about the challenges of taking Amtrak to New York City published on Jan. 1, a response to that letter published on Jan. 5, and an article about heat pumps published on Jan. 3 share the same “all or nothing” assumptions. Specifically, the author of the first letter could reduce their family’s carbon footprint considerably, avoid traffic, and save time and money over taking Amtrak all the way from Northampton by driving to New Haven then taking the Metro North train to NYC.

The second article might have mentioned that heat pumps can be installed to meet some but not all of a home’s heating needs. When our oil furnace conked out in 2014, we considered going 100% heat pump, but our heating company warned us that in addition to being much more expensive than simply replacing the furnace, we would need to supplement it during the coldest winter months. That advice was probably incorrect 10 years ago and is definitely incorrect now. Nevertheless, we followed it and installed a comparatively inexpensive hybrid system that uses a heat pump for air conditioning and heat when the temperature is above 30 degrees Fahrenheit and oil when the temperature falls below that. Several years later, we installed two dozen solar panels to meet our heating system’s increased electrical needs, a big investment, but less than if we had gone 100% heat pump. While we still burn approximately 100 gallons of oil each winter — and feel badly about that — it’s 80% less than before.

We still believe that we need to stop burning fossils entirely, and want to replace our current system when we can afford it. Similarly, we take the train all the way from Springfield to NYC when time and budget allows, and look forward to doing so more often when the service becomes faster, cheaper, and more plentiful.

David Glassberg

Amherst