Confusion over science, religion
Re “Trump’s bonfire of the agencies” (Viewpoints, Dec. 16): That climate change is caused by humanity is a scientific fact; about as certain as the fact that the Earth is round. Charles Krauthammer repeats the lie that there is something “religious” about acceptance of this fact.
In spite of the recent election giving succor to those amoral few who benefit from a post-fact world, the laws of physics are unmoved. A clear majority of voters, of both parties, know that climate change is real and that humanity is responsible. The voters do not want the policies that Trump’s picks imply, namely the destruction of agencies like the EPA, which have kept the air clean and water pure.
Instead of regressive attacks on what works well, we want solutions like a carbon fee and dividend that benefit everyone, including business.
Stephen J. Hardy,
Are we entering a Kafkaesque era?
Re “Obama should ban offshore drilling, fast” (Editorials, Dec. 15): The Bee’s editorial board effectively makes the case that Donald Trump, through Cabinet appointments and public statements, has signaled “that it will be fossil fuel, all the time, in his administration.” These same appointments and statements also show an intent to dismantle the Obama administration policies to address climate change, notwithstanding overwhelming scientific warnings regarding the dangers posed by climate change.
Even more frightening, government scientists have come to accept the possibility that a Trump administration will seek to limit crucial government climate change data collection programs or actually pose a threat to climate change data already have collected.
Are we truly entering a Kafkaesque period and what does it portend when parts of the scientific community seriously entertain this possibility?
Harold Ferber, Elk Grove
Trump and Islamist similarities
Re “Scientists copy data on climate in case it is lost under Trump” (Insight, Dec. 14): Does anyone else see the similarity of scientists hastily trying to protect scientific data on climate change from the impending Trumpets in the same way historians try to protect statues/scripts/artifacts from ISIS? What a sad state we face; sadder still is the havoc saddled on generations to follow.
Ned Tompkins, Folsom
Right cause, wrong approach
Re “Brown vows he’d defy Trump on climate with a state satellite” (Page 1A, Dec. 15): I am proud to be a citizen of a state that has the vision to combat climate change. Republican politicians who recognize the need to address a growing budget deficit should also realize the same holds true for the buildup of carbon in our atmosphere. That being said, I believe Gov. Jerry Brown’s use of regulations and a complex cap-and-trade system is the wrong approach.
We need a price on carbon that reflects its economic, health and environmental impact. A national, revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend program would be easy to implement and would allow market forces to regulate the burning of fossil fuels. To me, this is a better solution but I remain encouraged by Brown’s strong stance with science and reason.
Bob Rodger, Los Osos
Trump missed an opportunity
Our president-elect missed a great opportunity last week to show he understands the legal requirements of the job he is about to assume. Instead of supporting and defending our freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution and demanding the allegations that a foreign nation hacked information from private individual’s computers to use in swaying the election be investigated, he directed the blame to the CIA as being politically motivated and dismissed the CIA’s information as being the same agency that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I applaud our elected officials that see they have the duty to support and defend our Constitution for the sake of our nation and our freedoms, and not a political party, candidate or president to be. I hope that after Donald Trump takes the oath of office he is able to fully support and defend all parts of our Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, not just some of them.
James Roth, Placerville
Learn the Electoral College count
Claiming that one wins the presidential election by winning the popular vote is not reality. This reality was proved in the 2000 presidential election when Al Gore won the popular vote.
Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s campaigns knew the end result of the voting would be the Electoral College. One would expect that each campaign would direct their efforts to reach the states that could put them over the top. One of them didn’t and Clinton lost. Sometimes we don’t learn from history.
John Kosman, Fair Oaks
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.