We should adapt to climate change

Re “A chilling forecast,” editorial, June 2

I disagree that recent climate forecasts provide any convincing arguments for Congress to pass a bill that would cut carbon emissions 70% by mid-century.

The bill would surely make headlines as clear action on climate change. However, it provides no clear provisions for overcoming the sacrifices in output capability, as spending on research and development does not guarantee results. Especially given current economic conditions, this seems a risky proposition. Also, U.S. action alone could cause economic disadvantages compared with developing areas such as China and India.

Finally, the various sources cited in the editorial suggest that most results of climate change are expected to happen regardless of future actions. Any “team-up” of lobbyists should focus on providing for adaptation and research before risking the growth of the U.S. economy by guaranteeing reduced emissions.

Patrick Banks

Irvine

--

Re “White House report backs climate change warnings,” May 30

How convenient. Just as President Bush is poised to leave office, his administration comes out and publicly supports the consensus in the scientific community that global climate change has been predominantly caused by human activity and that it will bring wide-scale devastation to North America.

Admitting the reality of a profound and urgent problem just as the crucial window of action is about to end is only one of the many nationally detrimental traits of the Bush administration. It might as well have just come out and said, “We’re letting the next guy take care of it.” It all seems disturbingly similar to Bush’s strategy on Iraq, the economy and the budget.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned; now Bush dances while America runs out of options.

Justin Jones

Glendora