Letters to the Editor, Jan. 23

If Scott Pruitt doesn’t understand the human contribution to climate change, he’s not qualified to run the Environmental Protection Agency. With the Earth’s temperature rising 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit and the ongoing acidification of the oceans, we can’t waste time in reducing carbon emissions.

A revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend program will have market forces push industry to reduce carbon emissions. The program makes it easy for industry to do the right thing and lower carbon emissions by 50 percent in 20 years. Let’s get real. Let’s get practical. Let’s get it done.

Janice Murota, Berkeley

Thanks to The Chronicle for printing one of the best articles in Thursday’s edition, Steven T. Dennis’ “GOP senator would let states keep health law” (Jan. 19). Because “one size never fits all,” allowing and encouraging individual states to choose their own health plan makes common sense. Dennis’ article was short, to the point, and not the usual run-on blah blah about what’s good for everyone! Thanks again!

Barbara Cleveland, Palo Alto

Regarding “2016 was hottest ever — record set for 3rd straight year” (Jan. 19): We learned that the global temperature has set a new record for the third year in a row and that scientists blame man-made global warming. In “EPA pick alters stance, says climate change real” (Jan. 19), we learn that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt believes that the Earth is getting warmer, that humans contribute “in some manner,” but is uncertain whether the burning of fossil fuels is the primary reason. One would hope that if he agrees that the burning of fossil fuels by humans “might” be responsible and that scientific predictions might be accurate, it would be smart to take action to minimize further harm to the environment.

As a conservative, he might be interested in promoting a steadily increasing price on carbon such as that envisioned by Citizens’ Climate Lobby. A study of this proposal shows that it would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent in 20 years without harming the economy. Making it revenue-neutral by refunding the money to American families will protect them from the rising price of carbon while the falling emissions protect the environment.

Lee Ballance, Berkeley

Regarding Howard Epstein’s “The Trump presidency will improve life for all” (Open Forum, Jan. 20): Because he is the vice chair of communications for the San Francisco GOP, one would hope that Epstein would appreciate civil discourse and the benefits of not insulting the population to which his comments are directed.

While I question his conclusions of what President Trump will do in the future, I find it disconcerting that he chooses to ignore some of the concerns that other Americans have given about Trump’s campaign rhetoric, over-the-top insulting tweets, bashing of anyone who disagrees with him, and the list goes on.

For those of us who are open to dialogue and for those who claim to be communicators, a great place to start would be to recognize that putting people in a defensive posture is not going to produce a conversation. If you don’t like the tactics that are being used by liberals, then raise the bar and model the behavior.

Emily Scott, San Francisco

Howard Epstein writes, “The left’s overreaction to the election results gives new meaning to the phrase ‘sore loser.’” This is factually incorrect. We are not sore losers. We are highly motivated winners. Numbers and reality matter.

Rick Kleffel, Aptos

As one of the many San Francisco voters who enthusiastically voted for Hillary Clinton, I found it extremely insulting to be characterized as a sore loser and as a childish, temper-tantrum liberal by Howard Epstein. As the vice chair of communications for the San Francisco GOP, I can understand why he would be inclined to gloat in this rare instance given the virtual invisibility of his organization, but to write a column for that apparent purpose only was a waste of space.

As for his teaser title that life will improve for us all under Donald Trump, I would have been delighted to be convinced about that, but, like Trump himself, Epstein’s column was noticeably deficient on policy. Nevertheless, I look forward to another column from him in six months or a year explaining just how unimaginably great things have become.

Amos Lawrence, San Francisco

Regarding “Teaching across our differences” (Open Forum, Jan. 17): Jonathan Zimmerman’s piece on what he calls political prejudice, similarly to Nick Hoppe’s “Time for other voices to be heard” (Jan. 17), which could be called “Can’t we all just get along,” makes several mistakes, but the overall problem is quite simple. He equates political prejudice with racial prejudice, which turns the definition of prejudice (which implies and requires ignorance) on its head.

While some strong political opinions may be based on ignorance or misinformation (for example, almost everything Donald Trump said during his campaign), a great deal of what he calls political prejudice is both educated and insightful, as well as an essential component for democracy: protest. While I’m sure many Trump supporters feel that they are justified in their resentment of minorities and their supporters, they are, in fact, incorrect and, in most cases, misinformed.

Would Zimmerman like to see such political opinions as white or male supremacy, might makes right, creative design and the questioning of evolution addressed as worthy so as not to offend students who hold those positions? Absurd. The educators he is finding fault with are engaging in the American tradition of political protest against inhuman ideas. Bless them.

Jeremy Snitkin, Novato

Because it’s been receiving so much attention lately, we might want to remember that fake news, or propaganda as we used to call it, is generally only as effective as people are inclined to accept it as justification in support of preconceived opinions or biases. With that in mind, one antidote to the phenomenon is a healthy sense of skepticism and the willingness to do one’s own research into the facts of a matter.

Jack Deaton, Mountain View