ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

No defense for Paris pullout

| Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 5:27 p.m.

This is in response to Dave Majernik's letter, “Paris pullout rational.”

Majernik's facts are not rational, and are based on statistics he spews from the conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation. I'm surprised he did not quote Breitbart.

As one side of President Trump's mouth speaks of Christian and family values, the other side speaks of “America First.” His actions fly in the face of Pope Francis, whose encyclical tells us to care for our common home.

Deuteronomy 30:19 tells us, “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.” On billygraham.org is the statement, “… of all people, Christians should be the most concerned for the environment.”

No one can dispute the fact that the U.S. is the winner when it comes to the largest per person carbon footprint. China, however, does win the No. 1 spot for emissions, as its plants work to fill our dollar stores and retail spaces with tchotchkes and “Make America Great Again” merchandise.

We are one of three countries to leave the accord. Trump states, “We want fair treatment. We don't want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore.”

Mr. Trump, Mr. Majernik, mission NOT accomplished.

Valerie J. Yockey

Plum

The writer chairs the Valley Democratic Committee.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.

click me