Cleaning the Environment

* Re “For Earth Day ‘95, It’s a Whole New Day,” editorial, April 21:

Congratulations! Your editorial staff has finally admitted that it is better to be scientifically objective and environmentally responsible than it is to be politically manipulative and environmentally fanatical. You have acknowledged how many of us feel: We’re not against a cleaner environment, we just want to get there the best way and recognize when we do.

If all of the things that the radical environmentalists were telling us were true, they would have nothing to fear from a cost-benefit analysis; it would only help prove their case. Both ends of the spectrum should meet in the middle to objectively assess the true extent of the real problem. Only then can sound science and economic/social guidelines be used to formulate a cost-effective resolution to yield real (versus computer modeled) benefits at the lowest overall cost for all concerned.

Unfortunately, the potential gains of such efforts will most likely pale in comparison to the biggest environmental threat of all: overpopulation.

FRANK J. BOHANAN JR.

Fullerton

* Re “Environmentalism Isn’t a Fad, but a Bedrock Story,” Commentary, April 21:

The lack of environmental coverage by the media should not be surprising, as it requires a level of comprehension that is beyond the 30-second sound bite. This is unfortunate, as the issues that face the United States do require sophisticated understanding to achieve meaningful and effective solutions. It is only in focusing upon unglamorous long-term goals, be they increasing investment levels in businesses or preserving scarce environmental resources, that we can improve our quality of life over the long haul. Government’s role must be to target these diverse aspirations into a cohesive action plan.

STEVE McLAIN

Irvine

* Yes, the Earth still needs protection in response to your article “Does the Earth Still Need Protection?” (April 22). As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives is poised to effectively repeal the Clean Water Act when members vote on H.R. 961 in a few weeks. The health and safety protections that many of us have worked long and hard on during the past 25 years are under siege. If this “Dirty Water Bill” passes, it will virtually eliminate the longstanding goals of the Clean Water Act by allowing more toxics in our waterways, more sewage in our coastal waters, gutting wetlands protections and removing standards and enforcement on storm water.

While some of the nation’s waterways remain beautiful resources, at least a third of our rivers, more than half of our estuaries and the majority of our lakes are not safe for fishing, swimming and other recreational uses. In California the impact of H.R. 961 being passed into law could have devastating results in the areas of sewage treatment and enforcement and implementation of storm-water provisions.

Unless everyone who cares about having clean waterways, safe beaches, and safe drinking water demands the federal standards to protect health and safety are kept strong, Congress will weaken the Clean Water Act beyond recognition.

LISA WEIL, Policy Director

American Oceans Campaign

Santa Monica