To the editor: Elected officials benefit from the political advantages of the demonstration of generosity to disasters (“” “”CAlifornia should move more quickly on clean energy. Some legislators want to take a break,»April 10). In the context of climate change, this can be short-sighted, even counterproductive.
I credit the columnist Sammy Roth for having courageously went where his deep understanding leads him inexorably. Existing regulations are already insufficient to achieve state emission objectives. Meanwhile, the financial advantages of Bill 306 of the assembly of the owners, if necessary, are derisory compared to the long -term costs of the increase in atmospheric pollution (unhealthy), increased CO2 (warming), slow electrification (slow transition to clean energy) and decades of new and existing houses (wasted resources).
The affordability must be expanded to include the cost of other districts that increase in smoke, some for the second time. There is no longer time to procrastinate on the mandate represented by climate urgency. Elected officials should support their recently adopted and avant-garde climate legislation.
Gary Stewart, Laguna Beach
..
To the editor: The president of the Assembly, Robert Rivas, is on the wrong track, if he thinks that he can help housing costs in California with a six -year break from new clean energy rules. I have news for him: global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and stopping clean energy rules further aggravates the problem later. Rivas must find other savings in housing costs. These could include the construction of small houses and apartments with larger densities. Better urban planning is also necessary, starting with public transport. Global warming is immune to our concerns concerning the drop in housing costs.
Carl Mariz, Irvine
