To the editor: When politicians resist taking motion to battle local weather change, they typically cite concern about lack of jobs. What about lack of lives? (“As nationwide warmth deaths rise, California girds for worsening bouts of maximum temperature,” Aug. 26)
What number of deaths will it take for conservatives to handle the issue? How many individuals should die?
Jeffrey Howard, a public well being professor in Texas, is quoted in your article as saying that the analysis discovering rising warmth deaths within the U.S. justifies “additional funding in surveillance and higher instruments to know what underlies these developments.”
We all know what underlies these developments: local weather change.
What this discovering justifies is an instantaneous and drastic shift away from fossil fuels. The warmth deaths underscore what we imply after we say local weather change impacts the livability of our planet.
The article talks in regards to the enlargement of hydrating and cooling facilities, however folks taking vehicles to get to those locations will solely exacerbate the issue.
Murray Zichlinsky, Lengthy Seashore
..
To the editor: The rising variety of warmth deaths is simply one of many damaging results of local weather change that requires an acceleration of our efforts to fight it. However it’s recreation over for urgently wanted local weather change motion if former President Trump will get elected in November.
Trump has referred to as local weather change a hoax, and his previous administration contemptuously refused to handle the disaster. Now, in 2024, the GOP platform doesn’t even point out local weather change, and Trump would roll again the Biden administration’s present local weather change initiatives.
We do hope that voters won’t let Trump critically degrade the futures of our kids and grandchildren.
Jack Holtzman and Irwin Rubenstein, San Diego
