Letters to the Editor: The market usually fails the environment when the government doesn't help

Los Angeles Times

3 days ago

To the editor: Contributing writer Veronique de Rugy is evenhanded when it comes to government subsidies: There should be none for the private sector. Let the market determine winners and losers in the economy ('Good riddance to those green-energy tax breaks. Now keep closing other loopholes,' July 17).
When it comes to consumer goods, private enterprise can be an effective allocator of resources, but the market has proved woefully deficient in other ways. It has failed to provide a decent life for all on a healthy planet. Short-term profit has overwhelmed long-term well-being. Corporate dominance has brought us a world fouled by chemical and plastic residues and climate-changing pollution. Even as renewable energy becomes practical and affordable, its relative powerlessness compared with the fossil fuel industry impedes its quick adaptation.
Meanwhile China, which has embraced a major role for the government in the economy, is eating our lunch in this regard. Electric vehicle manufacturing and more sustainable artificial intelligence are just two of its recent successes. China is still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, but it leads the world in renewable energy investment.
I don't want to live in authoritarian China. I want to live in a democratic USA that recognizes that the market must be supplemented by rational policy. If we don't prioritize humanistic, environmentally friendly policies via government action, they will not prevail.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: De Rugy appears to present a rational argument: She wants more green energy, but subsidizing it is the wrong way to get there.
She says, 'When you compare the size of green versus fossil-fuel subsidies, the difference is staggering.' Nonsense. I would assume an economist such as De Rugy would know the term 'externalities' — that is, social costs that come from economic activity. Burning fossil fuels creates horrendous externalities. Air pollution kills more than 8 million people annually. Carbon emissions from burning coal, oil and gas overheat the planet and cause more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and wildfires, which all cost communities billions of dollars.
I agree that subsidizing clean energy is not the most effective government policy to correct the energy marketplace. Instead of focusing on subsidies, however, De Rugy should join fellow economists, including some conservative Republicans, who call for mitigating fossil fuel externalities with a tax on carbon pollution.
Caroline Taylor, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: De Rugy's support for eliminating green energy subsidies in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' omits vital context. While President Trump didn't get the $1 billion he reportedly sought from the fossil fuel industry during his 2024 campaign, he did receive more than $75 million from various interests associated with fossil fuels. That aligns with his constant 'drill, baby, drill' chants and his bizarre, debunked claims that wind turbines cause cancer.
Meanwhile, the country reels from the devastating effects of climate change, from deadly floods in Texas to wildfires in California. The green energy subsidies De Rugy criticizes were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the Biden administration's major successes, backing proven clean energy companies.
Let's be honest: This repeal isn't about sound policy. It's about political revenge — and protecting fossil fuel donors.
Mark Winkler, Studio City