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

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

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
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sanders, Democrats push effort to kill ‘handouts' for fossil fuels in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Sanders, Democrats push effort to kill ‘handouts' for fossil fuels in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'

The Hill

time13 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Sanders, Democrats push effort to kill ‘handouts' for fossil fuels in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other critics of the Trump administration's environmental policies are renewing a push for legislation that would end energy subsidies that the critics say will 'destroy the planet.' The proposal, dubbed the 'End Polluter Welfare Act,' is a revival of past environmental advocacy efforts from Sanders and others, but it adds in targeted responses to Trump's agenda-setting 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' signed into law this month after passage by GOP majorities in the House and Senate. 'Donald Trump has sold out the young people of America and future generations,' Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nominations in 2016 and 2020, said in a statement Friday. 'The fossil fuel industry, with the support of Trump, is more concerned about their short-term profits than the wellbeing of the planet.' 'No more polluter welfare for an industry that is making billions every year destroying the planet,' Sanders added. The Hill reached out to the White House, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Interior for comment. The latest progressive-driven proposal would cut more than $190 billion in federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next decade, including $20 billion in bonuses designated for coal, oil, methane and pipeline companies through Trump's massive tax and spending overhaul. It also would also prevent the Trump administration from opening new public lands to drilling and mining. Other lawmakers who have signed onto the legislation include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). It has more than 20 additional House backers. 'Fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their product harms the climate, but have made obscene profits while communities are left to clean up the mess,' Mahyar Sorour, a spokesperson for the environmental advocacy group Sierra Club, said in a statement. 'Taxpayers cannot afford to write a blank check to Big Oil and Gas companies through subsidies, corporate giveaways, and sweetheart deals.' Republicans, under Trump's tight control, hold majorities in the House and Senate, so it's unlikely the legislation will gain much traction ahead of the 2026 midterm election cycle. However, opponents of Trump's shift in environmental policies argue that they want to highlight potential ramifications from the administration's efforts. 'We are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price,' Omar said in a statement on the proposed legislation. 'The End Polluter Welfare Act will finally hold polluters accountable and eliminate these harmful subsidies once and for all.' The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is projected to significantly ding the country's efforts to reverse the effects of climate change and add more emissions that will exacerbate global warming. Climate think tank C2ES found in an independent analysis that U.S. emissions will be 8 percent higher because of the new Trump law. The most significant provisions in the Trump-driven policies repeal tax credits for green energy technologies such as wind, solar energy and electric vehicles efforts adopted in the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding
GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding

The Hill

time13 minutes ago

  • The Hill

GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and 13 other Senate Republicans are urging the Trump administration to release National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding that has been held up for months. The GOP senators warned in a letter to White House budget chief Russell Vought that the 'slow disbursement of funds' that Congress appropriated in March 'risks undermining critical research and the thousands of American jobs it supports.' 'Suspension of these appropriated funds — whether formally withheld or functionally delayed — could threaten Americans' ability to access better treatments and limit our nation's leadership in biomedical science,' the senators warned. 'It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results,' they wrote. The Trump administration suspended or cut many NIH research grants earlier this year in order to undertake a thorough review to ensure they complied with Trump's orders to end federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. A database set up by a Harvard University researcher estimated that by the end of May more than 2,100 NIH grants worth more than $9 billion had been cancelled. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told senators in March at his confirmation hearing that his agency would restart grant reviews but an analysis by STAT, a health care news site, last month found that NIH had made little progress in narrowing the funding gap created by the freeze on grant approvals. Now Republican senators are trying to ramp up pressure on the Office of Management and Budget. They told Vought that they share his commitment to ensuring NIH funds are 'used responsibly and not diverted to ideological or unaccountable programs.' But they also argued that starving the NIH of funding could inadvertently undermine trust in the agency. 'Withholding or suspending these funds would jeopardize that trust and hinder progress on critical health challenges facing our nation. Ultimately, this is about finding cures and seeing them through to fruition,' the senators wrote. 'We respectfully request that you ensure the timely release of all FY25 NIH appropriations in accordance with congressional intent,' they added. The other GOP signatories were Sens. John Boozman (Ark.), Shelley Moore Capito ( Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), David McCormick (Pa.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Todd Young (Ind.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

Trump Hangs Up After CNN Question About Epstein Photo
Trump Hangs Up After CNN Question About Epstein Photo

Buzz Feed

time42 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

Trump Hangs Up After CNN Question About Epstein Photo

President Donald Trump hung up on a CNN reporter during a phone call Tuesday that lasted a mere 30 seconds after the journalist questioned him about resurfaced images showing Jeffrey Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to his second wife, Marla Maples. While appearing Tuesday on Erin Burnett OutFront, reporter Andrew Kaczynski shared details about the abrupt phone call with Trump that ended in name-calling. The call took place after CNN's KFile found photos of Epstein and Trump that had not been widely reported on before. One photo showed the disgraced financier and sex offender attending Trump's Plaza Hotel wedding to Maples. In a separate image, Epstein was seen with Trump and his children at a Harley-Davidson Cafe that same year. CNN also released a video of Trump and Epstein chatting with each other at a Victoria's Secret Fashion Show in New York in February 1999. Kaczynski told host Burnett that the call, in which he asked Trump about the images, ended with the president slamming CNN as 'fake news' and hanging up after he refused to answer questions about his past connection to Epstein. 'We were not on the phone very long. I think our call was about 30 seconds or so,' Kaczynski told Burnett. 'But when I asked him about the wedding photo, he said, he sort of paused for a second and then said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' before calling CNN 'fake news' and then hanging up on me.' In a statement to CNN, Kaczynski said, White House communications director Steven Cheung said, "These are nothing more than out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious." Cheung added: 'The fact is that the president kicked [Epstein] out of his club for being a 'creep.'' Kaczynski's heated yet ultra-brief conversation with Trump comes after the Department of Justice and FBI released a two-page memo earlier this month, claiming their Epstein investigation determined that there was no evidence Epstein was murdered or had a 'client list' of powerful figures he could potentially blackmail. Following the memo release, Trump faced scrutiny over his administration's handling of the Epstein files, particularly from his own base. Since then, both Republicans and Democrats have called on the president and his administration to release more information.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store