In the editor: The contributor writer Veronique de Rundandado to arrive at government subsidy: no one for the private sector. Let the market determine the winners and economic losers (“Great lift of green-energy tax breaks. Now keep closing other holes,” July 17).
If about consumer items, private business can be an effective astocator of resources, but the market has proven to be lacking in other ways. It has failed to give a decent life for everyone on a healthy planet. Short-time gain is healing for a long time. Corporate dominance brings us a world-killed chemical and plastic residues and poltime pollution pollution. Although renewed energy can be practical and affordable, the relative disadvantage compared to the fossil fuel industry has driven its immediate adaptation.
While China, who accepts an important role for the economic government, eating our lunch. Electric Vehicot Moults and more durable artificial intelligence only two of the new achievements. China is another significant emitter of carbon dioxide, but it brings the world to renewed energy investment.
I don’t want to live in Authoritarian China. I want to live in a democratic one who knows that the market should be added to policy rational. If we do not prioritize Humanistic, friendly environmental policy by government action, they do not win.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
In the editor: The rugy appears to present a reasonable argument: he wants the more green energy, but throw it the wrong way to get there.
He said, “If you compare the size of the green versus fossil-fuel subsidy, the difference is annoying.” Nonsense. I will consider an economist like de run to know the term “externality” – that is, social costs from economic activity. Fishing fossil fuels creates terrible externalities. The air pollution kills more than 8 million people per year. Carbon emissions from coal burning, oil or oil overwhelming the planet and causing more frequent and heavy heats, with wildfires, all the communities of the sea and wildfires, which are all communities in billions of billions.
I agree that the subsid of clean energy is not the most effective government policy to correct the energy market. Instead, instead of focusing on the subsidy, however, the Rune should participate in associated economists, including some conservative republics, who are calling for the fossil fuel externalities of carbon pollution.
Caroline Taylor, Santa Barbara
..
In the editor: Rugy support for eliminating green energy subsidies in “large beautiful bill” no significant context. While President Trump did not get $ 1 billion IS reported searched from fossil’s fuel industry in his 2024 campaign, he received more than $ 75 million from different interests associated with fossil fuels. Who aligned his constant “drill, baby, drill” chants and his strange, is being held claims that wind turbines cause cancer.
Meanwhile, the country brightens from the harmful effects of climate change, from the deadly flooding of Texas to wildfires in California. The strugalsides of Green Energy de Rugy are part of the action of inflation reduction, one of the main successes of the administration bid, backing proven energy companies.
We will be honest: this withdrawal is not about sound policy. It’s about political revenge – and protects donating fossil fuels.
Mark Witpler, Studio City
