To the editor: I attended Monday’s Nationwide Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration listening to in Santa Monica (“‘California’s coast is not for sale.’ State battles Trump plan to limit coastal oversight,” Aug. 11).
It’s not “environmental extremism,” as President Trump’s lackeys insist, to oppose an costly, time-consuming, untimely reevaluation of California’s coastal administration plan. Opinions usually happen every 5 to 10 years. California’s plan, reviewed in 2024, obtained glowing reward within the draft analysis, launched in 2025. It was accomplished however not signed earlier than Trump assumed workplace. Now, Trump needs a do-over, as when he performs golf, however with higher penalties.
The fossil gas trade is dying. It will possibly’t compete with renewables on value, pace of improvement, reliability or security, to not point out local weather affect. I think taxpayers shall be caught bailing out oil firms when billions of {dollars} in stranded belongings tank profitability.
In the meantime, Sable Offshore Corp., the corporate Trump is making an attempt to guard, is dealing with $18 million in fines for criminal activity.
Trump could wish to return to the final century, however I don’t.
Tom Hazelleaf, Seal Seashore
..
To the editor: One other phrase for the atmosphere is nature, for which there exists a long-standing and dependable methodology for examine, understanding and intervention. That is referred to as science.
Failure to understand the ability of this methodology can result in environmental extremism, which is actual. Take into account these pronouncements of extremist dogma:
“[Climate change] is the best con job perpetrated on the world.”
“[The carbon footprint] is a hoax made up by individuals with evil intentions.”
“In the event you don’t get away from this inexperienced rip-off, your nation goes to fail.”
California isn’t unsuitable on environmental coverage. The environmental extremist resides within the White Home.
Martin Gelbard, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: There appears to be no good arguments for the best way our federal administration treats the California coast in relation to power manufacturing. It has compelled the stoppage of offshore wind leases that might present clear power to the grid and as a substitute is pushing soiled offshore oil drilling.
One would possibly argue an all-of-the-above method for power independence is finest, however this isn’t the case when wind tasks are being canceled. One would possibly perceive that the president considers windmills off the shoreline ugly. Nonetheless, oil rigs are usually not lovely and their wanted onshore refineries are even uglier. They always ship unhealthful emissions, higher described as air pollution, into the sky. Offshore wind is pollution-free. There isn’t any such factor as wind spills, however oil manufacturing dangers very dangerous oil spills. California’s previous oil spills have precipitated financial and environmental harm, harming native fisheries and guarded areas, to not point out the misplaced wages on account of decreased tourism.
The one conclusion I can draw for our administration to create extra environmental and local weather harm is to line the pockets of Huge Oil. Doesn’t the well being and wishes of the numerous outweigh the earnings for a number of?
I oppose any additional offshore drilling, particularly off our lovely California shoreline. “Drill, child, drill” is an outdated mantra when there are higher power alternate options at the moment. Suppose wind and photo voltaic with battery storage, in addition to wave and tidal energy power manufacturing. Clear power have to be a part of our answer going ahead.
Jonathan Gentle, Laguna Niguel
