California and the climate

Tarta Smitheman, Pasadena
Pasadena Star News

Ricardo Lara’s op-ed, “Why California is going to the United Nations climate conference” (Nov. 9) resonates firstly because he mentions the smog that used to blanket Los Angeles. My great-grandmother moved to Pasadena in the early 1900s. By the 1950s, smog hid the mountains. When refuge inside could not soothe her respiratory ailments, my great-grandmother left Los Angeles. Nowadays, the San Gabriels are my visual solace, year-round, especially near twilight when the spines of ridge lines, the architecture of these mountains, are laid bare, highlighted. God bless the Clean Air Act.

And bless those politicians (like Lara and Judy Chu) who choose to mitigate climate change. In addition, we should always focus first on what’s bipartisan: carbon fee and dividend, repealing the Renewable Fuel Standard, extending Master Limited Partnerships to renewable energy and pushing for some of the cuts based on the Green Scissors report.  There is much good work to be done.


Want to slow climate change and prevent wildfires? Then pass a carbon tax now.

To the editor: I read Jacques Leslie’s op-ed article, “Santa Rosa’s charred now, but we’re all facing fire (or flood or heat wave) soon,” while taking a break from disaster preparations. You know: stockpiling water and food, gathering first-aid supplies, purchasing a generator.

Recent and ongoing disaster response is teaching us we have to be prepared to take care of ourselves for several days until help arrives, whether we are threatened by wildfire, floods or an earthquake. With the unprecedented number and magnitude of disasters occurring nearly simultaneously, it may be reasonable to expect help to arrive slowly.

Surely it is even more reasonable to expect our leaders to take action before disasters strike by addressing their chief accelerator, human-induced global warming. A gradually escalating price on carbon, specifically a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend, would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases entering our atmosphere while encouraging the use of energy sources other than fossil fuels.

It would be a powerful move away from disaster.

Peggy Painton, Los Angeles

Re: Monsoon Rains

Arizona Daily Star- Because our use of fossil fuels have raised the global temperatures, we affect local rains. Monsoon rains in S. Ariz. may be altered, the study says. We were just rolling the dice and hoping it won’t get worse, while we install deniers in DC.

Some say it is hopeless, that our demise is already assured. But the same scientists who correctly predicted changes in heat waves and floods say the future impacts depend on what we do, or don’t do, now. There are bills waiting in Congress to address this problem.

If we shake off the false reassurances of the doubt-mongers, we can reject the current denier based Congress and choose responsible adults not captured by the Carbon lobby. It is up to us to act.

Jan Freed

Letter to the Editor: Glendale’s support of Climate Change Accord, by Daniel Brotman

Readers weigh in on Glendale’s support of Climate Change Accord, Prop 64 Survey

Re: “Council supports climate initiative,” July 15-16. Thank you to leaders of the Jewel City for taking a public stand on the climate crisis, without doubt the No. 1 challenge we face as a society. Gov. Jerry Brown recently called climate change a threat to the existence of organized humanity, and he was right.

It is sadly no exaggeration to say that Glendale will be unlivable within the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren if we fail to respond quickly and aggressively. I look forward to working with the council on next steps, including a serious Climate Action Plan that includes a commitment to move to 100% renewable energy by no later than 2035, and a serious second look at whether we should be building a new CO2 spewing 250 megawatt gas plant at the site of the Grayson facility n south Glendale.

Daniel Brotman
Adjunct Professor of Economics, Glendale Community College
Glendale News Press

Kissing Paris goodbye, by Nancy Dorado-Curl

Regarding President Trump and the Paris climate accord: It reminds me of me as a child in the backyard. It would be raining outside, but I had made a playhouse from a shipping box, customized with windows, a door and curtains. I imagined it wasn’t raining, and I would sing and play in the soggy box until my mother screamed to get inside because “I would catch my death.”

Trump lives in a childish world of denial and ignorance. Scientific data backs up the relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change. Everybody else gets it. Why not Trump? Admission of error, to see the bigger picture — that makes a man.

For example, Mar-a-Lago is in Florida, the same state as Miami, which is planning to spend $500 million on pumps and elevated streets combating seawater flooding.

The only sane thing to do is to remain in the Paris accord, push for carbon tax and fee dividend and hope to God we can squeak in under the 400 ppm of C02 recommended by scientists, many of whom by now are probably unemployed.

Nancy Dorado-Curl, San Gabriel
San Gabriel Valley Tribune

The Paris accords: Letter in the Pasadena Star News by Jan Freed

The Paris accords

I enthusiastically applaud Elon Musk and other top business leaders publicly supporting the Paris talks.

We can easily achieve reductions in emissions with a slowly rising price on pollution signed into law. Rebates from the fees would put real money — hundreds of dollars a month — into citizens’ pockets, create millions of jobs and save hundreds of thousands of lives within two decades, say a variety of studies (such as REMI). Economists of all stripes say this conservative solution is the most effective one. See for more information.

President Trump is looking for love in all the wrong places. By making Paris even stronger, he would win the respect, admiration and gratitude of hundreds of millions of people, both here and worldwide. This certainty might transcend his loyalty to fossil-fuel interests, who just want to keep us burning the stuff.

— Jan Freed, Eagle Rock

Published at:

Trump doesn’t know the art of the legislative deal: Letters by Jan Freed and Craig R. Hover

Good act, poor president

Regarding your Question of the Week about how President Trump is doing at 100 days (April 25): Can someone name a piece of legislation Mr. Deal Maker has passed so far? FDR passed 15 bills in his first 100 days. Trump’s PR pen’s flourishes mean only “See, Dear Base, what a dashing, alpha guy I am?” and have little actual effect. Important government positions remain unfilled or filled by unqualified, corporate shills.

His immigration proposals must pass the three-way test: “Is it cruel, is it stupid, is it costly?”

He rattles his sword at North Korea and backs it into an unpredictable position. He unravels the EPA that has saved thousands of lives and $38 billion in net benefits. He brings us closer to the “game over” edge of the climate crisis, in the face of mountains of evidence. He will personally profit from his presidency and please the crocodilian Vladimir Putin. Will a flaccid Congress continue to grin and bear it?

He is a very poor president with a very good act.

​— Jan Freed, Eagle Rock

It’s a survival issue

It’s time to wake up. Global warming is not an economic issue. It is a survival issue.

Your article (May 1) goes on about coastline-related economic impacts 70 years from now. It, like virtually all other such pieces in the mainstream press, completely glosses over the real problem. If global warming is not stopped altogether soon, sea-level rise will be the least of our children’s problems.

In their own lifetime, summertime surface temperatures will be between 125 degrees and 144 degrees Fahrenheit in much of the U.S. and up to 157 degrees elsewhere. This environment will be fatal to 90 percent of the world’s population. To prevent this, we must engage in a World War II level of effort now before it stops us.

— Craig R. Hover, Monrovia