Readers React: Only Trump’s EPA would say cars that pollute less put too many lives at risk

To the editor: Thanks for publishing the article, “Trump’s EPA argues more people will die in car accidents unless California fuel rules are weakened.”

Yes, lives are important, so all of the lives that will be affected by weakening fuel economy standards should be considered. This includes the people affected by more air pollution, rising sea levels and other problems.

Cost savings should weigh what people pay for medical care because of increased air pollution, the cost of dealing with rising seas (it’s expensive to build a sea wall) and climate change’s effects on crop yields.

It would be foolish of the Trump administration not to consider the significant financial cost of dirtier air, among other problems. Loosening fuel economy standards could benefit a lot of rich people, but it is important to consider the total picture when making plans for the future.

Bill Roundy, Orange

..

To the editor: First, let me say how completely oblivious this administration is to think Americans outside President Trump’s base would buy for a second the Environmental Protection Agency’s argument that more efficient cars are less safe. Can you say “grasping at straws”?

Second, could this have anything to do with Trump’s new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum? Rile up the auto makers by telling them that building their autos and trucks with inferior, imported metals to meet the “new” mileage standards will be bad for their companies. “Auto fatalities will increase!”

Is there no bottom on how low the Trump administration will go?

Daniel V. Shannon, Chatsworth

..

To the editor: The Los Angeles Times tells us that the Trump administration believes California’s strict mileage standards can cost lives.

Less poison in the air is “bad.” And pink is green. Up is down. Black is white.

And “God didn’t make little green apples.”

Therese H.E. Whitney, Sherman Oaks

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook