Opinion: California Republicans face reality on climate change — and the ire of their party

To the editor: Grover Norquist and Patrick M. Gleason seem to suffer from the delusion that taxes are evil both in form and function. (“Angry taxpayers, leave Mitch McConnell alone and turn your attention to California’s Republicans,” Opinion, Aug. 17.)

They decry the fact that we have a rational government here in California (unlike in Kansas and Oklahoma), which understands that some revenue raising is needed to keep us a first-class state. Thus, raising the gas tax a few cents per gallon to maintain roads, bridges and related infrastructure is, to these people, an unacceptably onerous burden.

As the adage goes, when looking for the motivation, follow the money. I sense a whiff of the extraction businesses behind these men and their sycophants.

Jan Rainbird, Irvine

..

To the editor: Norquist and Gleason attack our state GOP legislators who courageously supported extending California’s cap-and-trade program. I am proud of Assembly Republican leader Chad Mayes, who understands that climate change is real and must be addressed.

By raising the cost of fossil fuels, cap-and-trade and the gas tax encourage the transition to clean energy. To reduce our fossil fuel use and to slow global warming, we need to pass a carbon fee and dividend nationally, which would return all revenue to American families; until that happens, California must lead the way.

Norquist calls cap and trade an economically disastrous policy, but California’s economy has surged under its system. The effects of ignoring global warming will make the costs of cap and trade seem like chump change, as coastal regions and major cities will have to fight rising seas and extreme weather.

If you want to talk about economically disastrous policies, President Trump’s denial of global warming and withdrawal from the Paris accord are excellent examples.

Anita Rivero, Downey

..

To the editor: There appears to be a growing disconnect between the ideological principles of conservatives and liberals, and how the two political parties address these values.

On the conservative side, Norquist and Gleason depict all taxation as bad. However, a fiscal conservative might respond that taxation can be worthwhile, depending on the purpose, and that California’s cap-and-trade program provides useful economic incentives to reduce pollution.

On the liberal side, identity groups are becoming increasingly assertive in advance of overall cultural acceptance. However, a social liberal might question where the trend leads; for instance, might people one day be forced to accept anyone’s behavior in public?

Political behavior by the two parties is increasingly responsive to the passionate fringes, which results in divisiveness at the expense of our common goals: freedom, justice, peace, prosperity and a clean world.

Ed Salisbury, Santa Monica

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook