Far-right speaker threatens climate fight

Re: “GOP goes off script to tab speaker” (Page A1, Oct. 26).

The election of Mike Johnson will result in the potential negative impact on climate policies. Conservative lawmakers often prioritize limited government regulation, economic growth and the interests of fossil fuel industries.

This can result in a reluctance to support comprehensive climate policies, such as emissions reduction targets and incentives for renewable energy. The rejection of international climate agreements can further isolate the United States from global efforts to combat climate change. The influence of these representatives can impede the development of a comprehensive and coordinated national strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources. As a result, the United States may fall behind in the global race to combat climate change, with potential consequences for future generations and the environment.

It is crucial to foster bipartisan cooperation and engage in evidence-based policymaking to address climate change effectively, ensuring a sustainable and secure future for all.

— Arav Mestry, Fremont

Language of war muddies the waters

There are two aspects of the language of war that really trouble me. The first is how we speak about missions, engagements, sorties, actions and other euphemisms for killing other humans. When I listen to news reports about the wars, I can easily stay distanced from what is actually happening. The language is simply describing people killing other people in words that we don’t use at any other time.

The second is when I hear a description that emphasizes the killing of women, children and seniors with no mention of men. Do their lives matter less? What message does that send to boys and men? Today both men and women are soldiers and many men also are civilians. We ask men to be sensitive and to be more involved with our children and households. So why isn’t it equally devastating to hear when they too are killed during war?

— Danielle Mewes, Palo Alto

Israel-Hamas conflict doesn’t argue for fence

Re: “Border walls have limits, in Israel and U.S.” (Page A6, Oct. 12).

While reading Rubin Navarrette’s article I found he had a refreshing take on the border issue.

These days the topic is so bogged down with partisanship that it seems neither side can agree on whether the concept of borders are even something needed in our society, or are they something that must be patrolled with an iron fist? The border is going to be a major issue in the upcoming year whether we like it or not and I agree that a wall won’t be a perfect antidote for our ailing border. But I have to wonder if Navarrette failed to connect the fact that the atrocities inflicted in Israel being done over a chain-link fence does not, in fact, make a strong case for a very thick and tall wall.

— Matt Gnier, San Jose