Letters to the Editor: Pausing environmental requirements to save money on housing now means we'll pay later
To the editor: Elected officials get political benefits from demonstrating generosity to victims of disasters ('California should move faster on clean energy. Some lawmakers want to take a break,' April 10). Within the context of climate change, this can prove short-sighted, even counterproductive. Sadly, the level of general understanding of the climate emergency is insufficient to protect and defend long-term legislation when it conflicts with short-term, anti-climate demands. This is particularly true when people are grieving the loss of a home — or an entire neighborhood.
I credit columnist Sammy Roth for bravely going where his deep understanding inexorably leads him. Existing regulations already are insufficient to meet the state's emissions goals. Meanwhile, the financial benefits of Assembly Bill 306 to homeowners, if any, is paltry compared to the long-term costs of increased air pollution (unhealthy), increased CO2 emissions (warming), sluggish electrification (slowed transition to clean energy) and decades of energy-inefficient new and existing homes (wasted resources).
The concept of affordability has to broaden to include the cost of other neighborhoods going up in smoke, some for a second time. There is no time left for procrastinating on the mandate that the climate emergency represents. Elected officials should stand behind their recently passed, forward-thinking climate legislation.
Gary Stewart, Laguna Beach
..
To the editor: Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas is on the wrong track, if he thinks he can help California housing costs with a six-year pause on new clean energy rules. I have news for him: Global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and stopping clean energy rules makes the problem even worse later. Rivas needs to find other savings in housing costs. These could include building smaller houses and apartments at greater densities. Better city planning is also needed, starting with public transportation. Global warming is immune to our concerns about lowering housing costs.
Carl Mariz, Irvine
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: The Dodgers' and Giants' Big Oil ads are just normal economic competition
To the editor: Neither the Dodgers nor the Giants are advocating for petroleum over clean energy ('What do the Dodgers and Giants have in common? An iconic ad — for Big Oil,' May 29). They are both providing paid ad services for competitors in the petroleum products industry, which will be with us until we are able to replace all fossil fuels with 100% clean energy sources. The clean energy cause is absolutely crucial to our future. We're getting there pretty quickly, but in the meantime, competitors gonna compete, and they're going to use ads to do so. Advertising for any one or all of them is neither a sin nor a crime, nor even naughty. It is simply competition, and none of it should be held as the least bit despicable as long as the economy continues to require some fossil fuels. After all, would you tell people who would freeze to death if they didn't burn coal that they were doing something immoral, unethical or even illogical, if that was all they had to heat their home? Mark Driskill, Long Beach .. To the editor: I appreciate columnist Sammy Roth's spirited commentaries about Big Oil advertising at sporting events. However, if ever there was a tempest in a teapot, it's this issue. I can't recall anyone ever saying, 'Wow! I saw the 76 ad at Dodger Stadium. I'm buying more gasoline!' To be fair, I've been going to Dodger Stadium for more than 50 years and I couldn't tell you who else has an ad. I'm generally watching the game. Jeffrey R. Knott, Fullerton .. To the editor: In the recent Boiling Point, the shot taken at Phillips 66 is open for debate. One part of the article conveys disappointment from local Dodger fans that the iconic 76 logo will now also adorn the outfield of the rival San Francisco Giants (seriously, who cares?). Others are asking to take down the logo in both stadiums because of its association with the fossil fuel industry. The average reader, I believe, can see both sides, although in most cases reluctantly. But here's a third topic of debate to consider. When you look around beautiful Dodger Stadium — be it the bull pens, the scoreboards or along the foul lines — what do you see? Huge four-color advertisements for alcoholic beverages that, when heavily consumed, can cause distraction and safety concerns for fans and families just wanting to enjoy a night out at the stadium. Heavy consumption of these products, and the aforementioned promotion of alcohol in this environment, never leads to anything good. Fan arguments and fights in the stands or, even worse, malicious attacks in the parking lot after the game. Yes, they're different topics, but it's something to think about. Richard Whorton, Studio City This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The Dodgers' and Giants' Big Oil ads are just normal economic competition
To the editor: Neither the Dodgers nor the Giants are advocating for petroleum over clean energy ('What do the Dodgers and Giants have in common? An iconic ad — for Big Oil,' May 29). They are both providing paid ad services for competitors in the petroleum products industry, which will be with us until we are able to replace all fossil fuels with 100% clean energy sources. The clean energy cause is absolutely crucial to our future. We're getting there pretty quickly, but in the meantime, competitors gonna compete, and they're going to use ads to do so. Advertising for any one or all of them is neither a sin nor a crime, nor even naughty. It is simply competition, and none of it should be held as the least bit despicable as long as the economy continues to require some fossil fuels. After all, would you tell people who would freeze to death if they didn't burn coal that they were doing something immoral, unethical or even illogical, if that was all they had to heat their home? Mark Driskill, Long Beach .. To the editor: I appreciate columnist Sammy Roth's spirited commentaries about Big Oil advertising at sporting events. However, if ever there was a tempest in a teapot, it's this issue. I can't recall anyone ever saying, 'Wow! I saw the 76 ad at Dodger Stadium. I'm buying more gasoline!' To be fair, I've been going to Dodger Stadium for more than 50 years and I couldn't tell you who else has an ad. I'm generally watching the game. Jeffrey R. Knott, Fullerton .. To the editor: In the recent Boiling Point, the shot taken at Phillips 66 is open for debate. One part of the article conveys disappointment from local Dodger fans that the iconic 76 logo will now also adorn the outfield of the rival San Francisco Giants (seriously, who cares?). Others are asking to take down the logo in both stadiums because of its association with the fossil fuel industry. The average reader, I believe, can see both sides, although in most cases reluctantly. But here's a third topic of debate to consider. When you look around beautiful Dodger Stadium — be it the bull pens, the scoreboards or along the foul lines — what do you see? Huge four-color advertisements for alcoholic beverages that, when heavily consumed, can cause distraction and safety concerns for fans and families just wanting to enjoy a night out at the stadium. Heavy consumption of these products, and the aforementioned promotion of alcohol in this environment, never leads to anything good. Fan arguments and fights in the stands or, even worse, malicious attacks in the parking lot after the game. Yes, they're different topics, but it's something to think about. Richard Whorton, Studio City
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Yahoo
Nevada governor vetoes bill to expand mail drop boxes before Election Day
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed a proposal Thursday aimed at expanding ballot dropboxes. The proposal, Assembly Bill 306, would have required Clark County to establish 10 drop boxes be available between the end of early voting and the day before Election Day. The bill included smaller numbers for other counties. The proposal passed the Nevada Senate along party lines and in the Nevada Assembly with one Republican joining Democrats. 'Nevada is already among the easiest states in the nation to cast a vote,' Lombardo wrote in his veto message Thursday. 'AB 306 appears to be well-intentioned but falls short of its stated goals while failing to guarantee appropriate oversight of the proposed ballot boxes or the ballots cast. I believe additional election reforms should be considered as part of a larger effort to improve election security, integrity and allow Nevada to declare winners more quickly.' 'I am disappointed that Governor Lombardo vetoed AB306,' Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager said in a statement. 'AB306 was a bipartisan measure aimed at ensuring that voters, especially working families, seniors, and those with disabilities, have secure and accessible ways to return their mail ballots between the end of early voting and election day, allowing election workers to count votes quicker. However, I remain committed to protecting Nevadans' right to vote in a safe and secure manner and I look forward to working with Governor Lombardo over the waning days of session to find a mutually acceptable compromise.' Speaking with the 8 News Now Investigators after the 2024 general election, Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said Clark County's tabulation infrastructure and the rush of ballots received on Election Day were to blame for delays. Nevada state law requires all mail-in ballots to be mailed and postmarked by Election Day. There is then a four-day period after Election Day when county clerks can accept the postmarked ballots and process them. If the ballot does not have a postmark, county clerks can process ballots up to three days after Election Day. Measures the Nevada Legislature put in place in 2021, alongside the mail-in voting law, scrubbed voter rolls of non-eligible and deceased voters. Just over half of Nevada's ballots cast in the 2022 general election were mail ballots, according to a thorough study released by the federal government. The state and counties routinely clear their rolls of inactive voters. In recent sessions, Republicans and Lombardo have pushed for election-related changes without success in the Democratic-controlled Legislature. Close margins often decide Nevada elections: In 2022, Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo won by about 15,000 votes; Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto won by about 8,000 votes. In 2020, former President Joe Biden won by about 33,000 votes. Nevada voters can opt in or out of receiving a mail-in ballot at Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
