Climate Rift, Protests at Genoa Summit

Re “Bush Feels Heat of Climate Pact at G-8 Summit,” July 22: President Bush’s unwarranted rejection of the international talks on global warming reveals a disturbing trend toward U.S. isolationism and unilateralism. Bush’s obstinacy undermines U.S. foreign relations and highlights the intimate ties between the Bush administration and the oil/gas industry--doing so without offering any viable alternative to the Kyoto treaty.

Global warming is not hype and hysteria invented by radicals; on the contrary, it’s solid science. Humans--not some mysterious natural forces--are responsible for global warming.

As leader of the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, Bush’s recalcitrance on global warming is an embarrassment. His “go-it-alone” stance will jeopardize our relations with allies on other key matters. It’s time we take responsibility for our contribution to global warming, instead of charging madly forward at full throttle as if there’s no tomorrow.

Geoffrey Land

San Luis Obispo

After all the effort and money the U.S. has poured into developing the advances in science and technology from which all nations have benefited, isn’t it time for the other industrialized nations to come forward and foot the bill for the research and development of energy resources that do not create pollutants? If and when they succeed, the U.S. can then pay them the royalties that are their due.

Until then, the U.S. should not have to shut down its industry, lay off workers and suffer calamitous, widespread poverty. And by then, we might know for sure whether global warming is really man-made.

James Bonorris

Los Angeles

“Organized Anarchy in Genoa” (July 22) quotes an anarchist named James: “Violence is central to the media’s attention. Unless things get smashed, nobody pays attention.” The Times validates the anarchists’ rationale by devoting considerable space and printing a picture of an anarchist atop a car with his fist in the air.

Time and again the media--both television and print--focus on the violent and destructive acts in our society, as though they are, in and of themselves, important news. Was the important news here that a few anarchists had run amok, property was destroyed and a person killed, or that thousands of peaceful protesters had gathered to protest the G-8 meeting? Why had they spent considerable money, interrupted their daily routines and traveled to Genoa to protest a meeting? What were their concerns that made that personal sacrifice seem worthwhile? Is there any source of money underwriting their activities that speaks to the source of opposition to the outcome of the G-8?

Bernard Beskind

Los Alamitos