Opinion: How climate scientists should explain the unacceptable risk of doing nothing on global warming

To the editor: Ben Santer, a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has an uphill battle to convince people that climate change is man-made. The controversy is promoted by groups that have something to lose. Education will work with some people, but too many make their decision based on political opinion. (“Can a federal government scientist in California convince Trump that climate change is real?” Dec. 30)

I propose that simple risk assessment be used to determine our course of action.

If climate change is not from human activities and we proceed with efforts to correct it, then some money is wasted and the fossil fuel industry will suffer. The green industry will prosper with jobs gained, we will probably get cleaner air to breath, and we will have less dependence on foreign oil.

If climate change is from human activities and we do nothing, the results could be devastating. The world could lose vast forests along with the watersheds. Grasslands could die off with new dust bowls. Our supplies of food and fresh water could be devastated. People in hardest-hit areas stand to be displaced. The next extinction could be humans.

Believe or don’t, but do not gamble with your children’s lives.

Don Jones, Kenmore, Wash.

..

To the editor: I love that Santer is leaving the sidelines and entering the public arena, but it’s telling that Donald Trump’s victory can still “shock” the scientists who study climate change. One would think that people who live with the problem daily and see American inaction would live in a state of shock, but they don’t.

Scientists are people like us who set the reality of the problem aside and focus on today, their science, their family and what’s around the corner. Humans are not well equipped to deal with long-term problems. We, even scientists, push the reality of climate change away. We push it far into the future and we imagine our children doing better than others.

If climate scientists enter the public arena and examine solutions, they’ll soon be pushing to price carbon pollution, just like economists.

Angie Vazirian, Newport Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook