To the editor: Your article on California piers imperiled by climate change quotes a researcher as saying, “There’s restricted assets, and we have now to suppose strategically about what are we going to guard?”
This considering has to embody the fact that people aren’t taking local weather change significantly. Sure, thousands and thousands of us are, however billions aren’t.
It has been beneficial that folks cease utilizing fossil fuels, however that’s not working too nicely. The failure of this comparatively straightforward job doesn’t bode nicely for every other rational thought on the matter.
Gregg Ferry, Carlsbad
..
To the editor: The destruction of California piers by storms exacerbated by local weather change raises the query — why have these piers within the first place?
The piers developed from business delivery use to leisure for the general public. If piers will proceed to be destroyed by nature and if thousands and thousands are spent to rebuild them, why trouble spending public funds to take care of them?
Bob Ladendorf, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The lack of California piers might not appear to some to be such a giant deal within the large scheme of issues. However this is only one symptom of our perilous future if we don’t management the warming of the Earth by our burning of fossil fuels.
There may be overwhelming scientific proof of the perils of extra warning of the Earth. Hurricanes Helene and Milton, supercharged by local weather change, have been simply two current examples.
If you happen to haven’t but been personally harmed by local weather change, don’t be complacent — it would come for you, your youngsters and your grandchildren.
We’d like each Republican and Democratic voters to vigorously demand that their congressional representatives take urgently wanted actions to regulate local weather change. Representatives, hearken to voters.
Jack Holtzman and Irwin Rubenstein, San Diego
