To the editor: Since most of the "dirty" industries remaining in the Los Angeles area are located cheek-to-jowl in sections populated by lower income families, the refusal to incorporate board members with a higher sense of concern for the environment leaves those citizens — as usual — very poorly represented on all fronts.
( "AQMD board shake-up fails," Sept. 2)
For several years, when I was an environmental assessor, consultant and trainer in the occupational health and safety trade, I often encountered AQMD field officers doing a pretty good job of citing and curbing defiance of the air quality rules.
In decades past, it seemed to me to be composed of people who understood that their mandate was to protect the public from egregious acts of air pollution.
Carleton Cronin, West Hollywood
To the editor: Spending cap-and-trade money points to just one problem with cap-and-trade. The Legislature tries to fairly balance expenditures between groups while also trying to slow global warming. It's a Herculean task.
( "Lawmakers reach deal on cap-trade spending," Sept. 1)
Using cap-and-trade to address acid rain and ozone hole problems was completely different. Climate change is a production problem, and until production is capped, we'll keep burning what is produced. The best way to "cap" production is to tax it as it leaves the ground, and steadily increase the tax. Our legislature just passed a joint resolution that asks Congress to adopt such a plan. California can't solve the global problem.
Angie Vazirian, Newport Beach
To the editor: Two lessons learned from California's cap and trade law. First, it is not about climate change but it is about a political agenda to develop a new source of tax revenue to be distributed by politicians.
Second, there is zero fiscal discipline in California government with no incentive or desire to refund money or reduce taxes but just a continuing propensity to spend.
Don Black, Rancho Palos Verdes
To the editor: As a way to determine the success of this effort, every five years or so taxpayers should get a very simple report card: How much carbon/methane has been scrubbed from the air and how much temperature reduction has been achieved?
In other words a cost/benefit analysis.
Ken Artingstall, Glendale