To the editor: The 55th anniversary of Earth Day might be a good time for some reflection. How has protecting the very environment that sustains our life become so partisan (“We used to agree on Earth Day. Political division has changed environmental priorities,” April 22)? Why aren’t both political parties more aligned on protecting us against climate change and all the havoc it can wreak? How can we get our elected officials working in the same direction, even if not at the same speed? Why are some trying to reverse the very regulations that keep us safe?

I understand the varying beliefs on how quickly we need to address the issues facing us, but I can’t understand why it’s considered a political win to ignore or misrepresent the dangers of climate change. It’s not a zero-sum game; we can grow our economy and protect our climate at the same time. That’s why a number of elected officials working on the reconciliation process want to keep the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy credits. I suggest that the long-term cost of not addressing the dangers of climate change far outweighs the short-term monetary savings. You cannot put a price on the lives lost to premature deaths as a result of increasing weather-related devastation.

Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel

..

To the editor: Staff writer Hayley Smith’s cogent analysis of how the Trump administration is reversing over 50 years of environmental progress leaves out perhaps the most important aspect of these actions: What affects us affects all of Earth’s nations. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we abandon the environment, why would poorer nations — which, by definition, would be every other country — continue to move ahead with their programs? I guess we’re the lemming that leads the rest off the environmental cliff.

Ron Garber, Duarte