To the editor: The fifty fifth anniversary of Earth Day could be time for some reflection. How has defending the very surroundings that sustains our life turn out to be so partisan (“We used to agree on Earth Day. Political division has modified environmental priorities,” April 22)? Why aren’t each political events extra aligned on defending us in opposition to local weather change and all of the havoc it may possibly wreak? How can we get our elected officers working in the identical course, even when not on the identical pace? Why are some making an attempt to reverse the very rules that preserve us protected?
I perceive the various beliefs on how rapidly we have to tackle the problems dealing with us, however I can’t perceive why it’s thought-about a political win to disregard or misrepresent the risks of local weather change. It’s not a zero-sum sport; we will develop our economic system and defend our local weather on the identical time. That’s why various elected officers engaged on the reconciliation course of wish to preserve the Inflation Discount Act’s clear vitality credit. I recommend that the long-term price of not addressing the risks of local weather change far outweighs the short-term financial financial savings. You can not put a worth on the lives misplaced to untimely deaths because of rising weather-related devastation.
Jonathan Gentle, Laguna Niguel
..
To the editor: Workers author Hayley Smith’s cogent evaluation of how the Trump administration is reversing over 50 years of environmental progress leaves out maybe a very powerful facet of those actions: What impacts us impacts all of Earth’s nations. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we abandon the surroundings, why would poorer nations — which, by definition, could be each different nation — proceed to maneuver forward with their applications? I assume we’re the lemming that leads the remainder off the environmental cliff.
Ron Garber, Duarte
