Latest news with #JonathanLight
Los Angeles Times
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The interests of a few logging companies shouldn't come before forest preservation
To the editor: Revoking our forest protection rules is a shining example of what happens when money can influence politics in a negative way ('Trump administration rescinds 'Roadless Rule' that protects 58 million acres of national forests,' June 23). I am not against capitalism and the pursuit of wealth. Having said that, I am against the idea that a few can generate their wealth by harming the many. This is exactly why we have certain rules and regulations in place designed to protect society as a whole. The greater good of all should trump the greed and wishes of a few if those wishes are potentially a large danger to others. Our forests are important areas that help sustain life on our planet. They soak up much of our heat-trapping carbon emissions and provide us with oxygen that we need to breathe. They give us pristine waterways with clean drinking water. They also provide a habitat for other species besides humans. We need this biodiversity to maintain the ecosystem that sustains life for all of us. Removing the forest protections is a disservice to everybody, causing much damage while only helping the few logging companies with their own economic agenda. This is not a sustainable model if we want to keep our world livable. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel .. To the editor: It makes no sense that the current leadership of the United States Department of Agriculture alone can overturn an act as important as the 2001 Roadless Rule, especially in public lands areas close to urban communities like the San Gabriel Mountain National Monument. This would open up public lands for more logging and new logging road builds. Trout Unlimited Chief Executive Chris Wood has it spot-on when he says the Roadless Rule serves as a highly significant guardrail in a climate change era when all our natural capital is at risk. Common sense indeed. We all live downstream. Drew Irby, Lincoln, Calif. .. To the editor: Our administration seems to be obsessed with dismantling regulations that protect us, our environment and wildlife. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins argues the Roadless Rule is too restrictive, but I strongly disagree. The goal seems to be to privatize everything for the benefit of the few and that leaves the rest with the loss of our treasured national public lands. To that end, the administration seems particularly aggressive in destroying our public lands — lands held in trust for all and for the future. Thank you, staff writer Hayley Smith, for shining a bright spotlight on this land grab issue. American businesses used to be leaders of innovation and can be again without destroying our land further. Energy independence is a national security issue. If this administration were serious about it, officials would be helping grow our renewable energy sector, realizing that fossil fuels are a finite resource and cause harm. Renewable sources are a better way for the future. We must protect our forests and ecosystems for the future for all. Melissa Waters, Laguna Niguel
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: How did protecting our environment become such a partisan issue?
To the editor: The 55th anniversary of Earth Day might be a good time for some reflection. How has protecting the very environment that sustains our life become so partisan ('We used to agree on Earth Day. Political division has changed environmental priorities,' April 22)? Why aren't both political parties more aligned on protecting us against climate change and all the havoc it can wreak? How can we get our elected officials working in the same direction, even if not at the same speed? Why are some trying to reverse the very regulations that keep us safe? I understand the varying beliefs on how quickly we need to address the issues facing us, but I can't understand why it's considered a political win to ignore or misrepresent the dangers of climate change. It's not a zero-sum game; we can grow our economy and protect our climate at the same time. That's why a number of elected officials working on the reconciliation process want to keep the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy credits. I suggest that the long-term cost of not addressing the dangers of climate change far outweighs the short-term monetary savings. You cannot put a price on the lives lost to premature deaths as a result of increasing weather-related devastation. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel .. To the editor: Staff writer Hayley Smith's cogent analysis of how the Trump administration is reversing over 50 years of environmental progress leaves out perhaps the most important aspect of these actions: What affects us affects all of Earth's nations. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we abandon the environment, why would poorer nations — which, by definition, would be every other country — continue to move ahead with their programs? I guess we're the lemming that leads the rest off the environmental cliff. Ron Garber, Duarte This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: How did protecting our environment become such a partisan issue?
To the editor: The 55th anniversary of Earth Day might be a good time for some reflection. How has protecting the very environment that sustains our life become so partisan ('We used to agree on Earth Day. Political division has changed environmental priorities,' April 22)? Why aren't both political parties more aligned on protecting us against climate change and all the havoc it can wreak? How can we get our elected officials working in the same direction, even if not at the same speed? Why are some trying to reverse the very regulations that keep us safe? I understand the varying beliefs on how quickly we need to address the issues facing us, but I can't understand why it's considered a political win to ignore or misrepresent the dangers of climate change. It's not a zero-sum game; we can grow our economy and protect our climate at the same time. That's why a number of elected officials working on the reconciliation process want to keep the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy credits. I suggest that the long-term cost of not addressing the dangers of climate change far outweighs the short-term monetary savings. You cannot put a price on the lives lost to premature deaths as a result of increasing weather-related devastation. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel .. To the editor: Staff writer Hayley Smith's cogent analysis of how the Trump administration is reversing over 50 years of environmental progress leaves out perhaps the most important aspect of these actions: What affects us affects all of Earth's nations. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we abandon the environment, why would poorer nations — which, by definition, would be every other country — continue to move ahead with their programs? I guess we're the lemming that leads the rest off the environmental cliff. Ron Garber, Duarte
