To the editor: The article on Donald Trump’s scientifically indefensible position on climate change reminds me of when I was a child growing up in the eastern part of Los Angeles County in the 1950s. One of my chores was to burn the household trash in the backyard incinerator. (“Trump seems ready to fight the world on climate change. But he's likely to meet resistance,” Nov. 25)
Ten years later, riding my bike through the streets of Claremont, I choked in smog that hid the San Gabriel Mountains only miles to the north.
Then came the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The air began to clear, and municipal water pollution became a rarity. But progress stopped with George W. Bush’s EPA.
With climate denier Myron Ebell likely to be put in charge of the EPA, Trump will again slam the brakes on climate action even as progress accelerates at local, state and global levels. Continued hardline resistance at the federal level makes America an extreme outlier.
Michael Segor, San Luis Obispo
To the editor: This article describes the Paris global climate agreement as a “treaty.” If that had been the case, it would have had to be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds approval to be binding in the U.S. That did not happen, and most believe that President Obama intentionally avoided that designation knowing he would not get that vote.
My suggestion is that Trump immediately submit the Paris accord (and the Iran nuclear deal) to the Senate for its advice and consent. Failing to get the super-majority vote surely would finally put to bed any further discussion of these two agreements.
This article implicitly maintains that there is a large majority of Americans who are concerned by climate change. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center report shows that this is not the case. According to Pew, the environment ranked 12th out of 14 issues for voters in 2016. Only 36% of Americans were found to be deeply concerned about climate change.
George A. Vandeman, Pacific Palisades
To the editor: “Mainstream science”? Please tell me The Times is not introducing this phrase into the American English lexicon as though climate deniers have another version of science. There is one science, just like there is one math.
One more slip-up was the reference to climate denier Ebell as a “scholar,” as if he comes to conclusions based on scientific consensus and the scientific method. I wish that were true.
An important lesson to everyone who believes there is only one science is that your vote is not enough. It’s time to get active.
Bruce Tierney, Irvine