Letters to the Editor: Climate change easily slides into the background, but it’s our gravest threat

To the editor: Guest contributor Bjorn Lomborg suggests we should be thankful that less attention is being given to climate change and more attention is being focused on problems of more immediate concern (“Why the global retreat from climate alarmism is a good thing,” Feb. 5). While wanting to be sure the mortgage is paid and food is on the table, overlooking the need to replace a worn-out roof is a bad idea.

It is true that there were a lot of deaths due to extreme weather conditions during the 1920s. But this was an unusual period for such events, just the right period to focus on for a comparison to deaths recently. In fact, one can refer to studies that claim to show significant increases in deaths due to extreme weather since the 1970s. And, as the author points out, decreases in deaths can be explained by innovations that have occurred since the 1920s. One has to wonder how many fewer deaths there might now be if even more had been done to moderate the impact of climate change.

When considering deaths due to fossil fuels, one should not overlook another very important issue: the pollution those fuels create and its impact on health. It has been estimated that, in 2018, fossil fuel pollution was responsible for about 8 million deaths worldwide — about 20% of all deaths that year. I would suggest, in relation to my initial analogy, that the roof should have been replaced yesterday.

Finally, it is not the opinions of the average guy on the street that should guide political decisions in this situation, but rather the combined knowledge of the scientists who spend their lives studying and researching the issue of climate change, and most likely have a far better understanding of what our future might be like if we do not effectively deal with it. We should expect our leaders to be guided by the best minds on the planet and, in so doing, lead us all to a better future.

Joel Weiner, Tarzana

..

To the editor: What an alarming op-ed from Lomborg regarding politicians’ diminished focus on climate change. Lomborg suggests that “voters have become sick and tired of constant climate alarmism” and that those who work toward climate solutions have been “shouting about doomsday.”

There are so many frightening issues in our nation today: housing, affordability, election safety, racism, threats to our democracy and on and on. The issue that slides into the background too easily is indeed climate chaos, which is the most existential threat of our time. It’s here and causing damage, and will get much worse.

Fortunately, there are many individuals, communities, corporations and countries that are finding creative solutions and taking responsible actions to make positive change. They are not “shouting,” but moving forward to a cleaner and safer future for generations to come. Let’s listen to their voices and follow their lead.

Margaret Baker Davis, Claremont

..

To the editor: Thank you for including this op-ed by Lomborg. His message is a welcome oasis of truth and balance in a desert of hysteric propaganda. Lomborg is seemingly someone who does not let politics drive his research, which is incredibly rare these days.

David Waldowski, Laguna Woods

..

To the editor: Is Lomborg’s piece meant to argue against climate “alarmism,” or is it really meant to prove that the “alarmists” are right?

I ask this because the author is not a climate scientist, he offers no scientific data to refute the state of climate change, and he focuses on polling (which has nothing to do with actual climate science). He mentions actions that he sees as a retreat from dealing with the climate emergency with nary a mention that the U.S. has been headed by an anti-climate change and anti-science administration for a year.

The complete lack of scientific credibility behind Lomborg’s “arguments” reaffirms what climate activists are saying.

Paul Giorgi, Glendale

..

To the editor: Lomberg’s screed in the Los Angeles Times is itself an alarming signal. Any retreat from what real science is telling us about the impact of wholesale combustion of fossil fuels should be rejected — regardless of the message. This is particularly true when the least expensive new sources of energy are solar, wind and other renewables. Lomberg wants us to believe turning a blind eye to the facts is a good strategy.

Peter Coye, Pomona

..

To the editor: Unfortunately, whether or not the public is getting tired of hearing about climate change, or whatever the political ramifications of the other simultaneous needs of our society, the actual fact that the climate is changing (and pretty much at the rate predicted 40 years ago) can’t be changed by polemics.

Climate change is slow compared to the pace of human life, and that is the single biggest reason it is usually ignored in the day-to-day bustle of the world. But it is inexorable, just like melting glaciers were during the ice ages, taking decades (not months) for the effects to show.

Sadly, it will also take decades to respond usefully to mitigate it, which is why action now is so important.

Michael Lampel, Granada Hills