Letters to the Editor: Climate change generally isn’t a high-priority issue for voters. It should be

To the editor: Underlying this article is the Trump administration’s contemptuous dismissal of overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change and its impact on our planet and our own health (“Trump administration opens more land for coal mining, offers $625 million to boost coal plants,” Sept. 29).

Near the end of the article, it’s mentioned that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin previously said he plans to roll back a 2009 finding that climate change harms human health and the environment. This is consistent with President Trump’s ignorant rants about climate change, including the recent United Nations speech in which he called it “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

Climate change is (unfortunately) not a high-priority issue with voters. But when unnecessary deaths and sickness caused by Trump’s policies, especially those connected to our health, become apparent to all, science and truth should play a more important role in the midterms.

Jack Holtzman, San Diego

..

To the editor: Most Americans don’t realize the cost of having elected this particular federal government at this moment in history.

One example to illustrate why: After Russia began phasing out fossil fuel exports to Europe at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Germany was forced to massively accelerate its solar power expansion, which has helped the country meet its needs and offset costs. Because of utility regulatory capture, we wouldn’t expect to see something similar in the U.S.

Solar and wind have surpassed cost parity with fossil fuels and are cheaper in the vast majority of instances. So, attempting to revive coal as an energy source is like buying a chicken to make an omelette. It makes no sense unless you’ve cut yourself off from every market in town and have no other options.

Pam Brennan, Newport Beach