The front page of your Nov. 28 edition carried two stories with an interesting juxtaposition. The lead story told of 10,000 petitions supporting the proposed coal port at Cherry Point. Below that is a story that points toward the possible end of Washington's shellfish industry due to the acidification of the oceans -- resulting from increasing carbon in the atmosphere. I believe you should have switched those stories in terms of their relative importance ecologically and economically. How can one fail to notice the irony? Why on earth would we want to sacrifice an industry based on an infinite resource - fishing -- for an industry based on a finite resource - coal -- when the one is so clearly the cause of the destruction of the other?