To the editor: Your article on California piers imperiled by climate change quotes a researcher as saying, “There’s restricted assets, and we’ve got to assume strategically about what are we going to guard?”
This pondering has to embody the fact that people usually are not taking local weather change significantly. Sure, hundreds of thousands of us are, however billions usually are not.
It has been beneficial that folks cease utilizing fossil fuels, however that’s not working too effectively. The failure of this comparatively straightforward process doesn’t bode effectively 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 industrial delivery use to leisure for the general public. If piers will proceed to be destroyed by nature and if hundreds of 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 could not appear to some to be such an enormous deal within the huge 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’s overwhelming scientific proof of the perils of further warning of the Earth. Hurricanes Helene and Milton, supercharged by local weather change, have been simply two current examples.
In case you haven’t but been personally harmed by local weather change, don’t be complacent — it can come for you, your kids and your grandchildren.
We’d like each Republican and Democratic voters to vigorously demand that their congressional representatives take urgently wanted actions to manage local weather change. Representatives, hearken to voters.
Jack Holtzman and Irwin Rubenstein, San Diego
