Letter to the editor: Conservatives & conservation |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Conservatives & conservation

I struggle to understand why the party of conservatives, of those who’d want to preserve both traditions and “our way of life,” does not care to recognize how critical it is to conserve and preserve the environmental foundation that underpins everything.

Republican messaging on climate has changed from outright denial to more subtle positions, but here is the problem: When elected officials say “climate is changing but we are not sure why,” it is still denial. Human responsibility is the whole point. When scientists say they are 95 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans, there is no room to say that this is debated or uncertain. Ninety-five percent certainty is as high a certainty as one will ever get in science, more or less.

The policies that follow from taking the stand of “we don’t know how much humans contribute to global warming” do not have the preventative measures necessary to slow down the climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency under Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler reversed 180 degrees from prior efforts to do so. If in doubt, please review the implementation of these policies as tracked by the Harvard University environmental law program’s regulatory rollback tracker .

So much is at stake for future generations. We ought to step back and think whether our electoral choices (and short-term political gains/losses) take this larger, longer-term picture sufficiently into account.

Lucyna de Barbaro

Squirrel Hill

The writer is a former physics researcher.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.