To the editor: The 55th anniversary of the Earth Day could be a good time for a reflection. How the protection of the very environment that supports our life becomes so partisan (“We used to agree on Earth Day. The political division has changed environmental priorities ”, April 22))? Why are the two political parties not more aligned on protecting us from climate change and all the ravages it can make? How can we make our elected officials work in the same direction, even if it is not at the same speed? Why do some try to reverse the very regulations that ensure us in safety?
I understand the variable beliefs about the speed with which we must tackle the problems we face, but I do not understand why he is considered a political victory to ignore or distort the dangers of climate change. It is not a zero -sum game; We can develop our economy and protect our climate at the same time. This is why a number of elected officials working on the reconciliation process wish to keep the clean energy credits of inflation reduction. I suggest that the long -term cost of not approaching the dangers of climate change prevails far on short -term monetary economies. You cannot put a price on lost lives due to premature deaths due to the increase in devastation linked to weather conditions.
Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel
..
To the editor: The convincing analysis of editor Hayley Smith on the way in which the Trump Administration opposite more than 50 years of environmental progress perhaps the most important aspect of these actions: what affects us affects all the nations of the earth. The United States is the richest nation in the world. If we abandon the environment, why the poorest nations – which, by definition, be in all other countries – would they continue to move forward with their programs? I guess we are the lemming that leads the rest of the environmental cliff.
Ron Garber, Duarte
