What EPA’s stance means for the state

Re “California emissions law rejected,” Dec. 20

The Bush administration’s refusal to engage meaningfully at the recent climate summit in Bali, followed by its refusal Wednesday to allow California and at least 16 other states to establish effective carbon emission standards, is like a crowded lifeboat sinking in a threatening sea. While nearly everyone frantically bails water out of the boat, the fattest person on board refuses to help, noting that others are not bailing fast enough. The effects of global warming are upon us and worsening, and only concerted action can lessen the impact. I doubt that our children and grandchildren will forgive the arrogant inaction of the United States.

Mark Hixon

Corvallis, Ore.

The federal government was right to override the governor’s and his cronies’ plan to combat global warming. Why should California taxpayers foot the bill for an experiment that would have little effect on this cyclical phenomena and possibly send more residents out of the state? First let’s balance our budget without raising taxes and encourage businesses, which create jobs, to remain.

R.J. Mendelson

Playa del Rey

Environmental Protection Agency standards are national minimum standards, or so I thought. Individual states should have the right to exceed those standards according to their environmental conditions. California’s air pollution levels demand that we act to lower vehicle emissions even more than we already have. Under the Bush administration, auto and oil industry interests have definitely taken priority over the needs of the environment and the people. Under this irresponsible administration, the EPA should be renamed the EDA -- the Environmental Destruction Agency.

Robert C. Lutes

Temple City