On climate change, nations must work together: Your Say

More than 100 world leaders, including President Obama, gathered in Paris this week for a summit on climate change. Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

Either global warming is real or it is not. Let’s assume that it is. It is either man-made or it is natural. If it is man-made, then the progressives of the world cannot do anything to stop it without getting China and India to agree to limit their fossil fuel use or Brazil and Indonesia to limit the destruction of their rainforests.

Otherwise, the West will just be helping the economies of the so-called developing world at the expense of Western economies. And man-made global warming, if it is real, will keep on going.

— Roberto Johnson

Climate alarmists are like crazy people holding signs that say “the end is near.” They’ve been predicting climate apocalypses for decades, and when nothing happens, they just push the date out.

Liberals have been falling for this junk for decades. It is just another way for the government to have more control and to reward special interests.

— Robert Anderson

A carbon tax to achieve zero net emissions would go a long way toward fixing the problem and could actually be a boon to the economy. It’s something we should do even if all the science ends up being wrong.

— Mathew Andresen

Many skeptics cannot understand scientific fact. They would rather trust God to attend to all issues relating to the planet. They should visit cities in China where visibility is so poor because of the man-made smog.

— John Thomas

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

ExxonMobil deserves scrutiny

Letters to the editor:

ExxonMobil may have “a right to its opinions,” but it is not entitled to all the benefits that society extends to corporations if it has cynically breached the public trust. And absent a full investigation, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the legality of ExxonMobil’s conduct (“ExxonMobil has a right to its opinion: Our view”).

Your editorial claims that “the most likely effect of a costly legal examination of Exxon’s past statements is a lower stock price, hurting current investors.” However, it is ExxonMobil — not the attorney general of New York state — that is responsible for any losses incurred by its shareholders as a result of decisions that corporate leaders deemed to be in the company’s self-interest. As with the tobacco cases two decades ago, our law enforcement officials have a duty to protect investors and the public when narrow corporate self-interest conflicts with the broader public interest.

Kathy Mulvey, campaign manager, Union of Concerned Scientists; Washington, D.C.

The editorial was well done, the opposing view not so much (“What if ExxonMobil broke the law?”). The opposing view states that ExxonMobil’s past public statements about climate change and its actions have “inspired revulsion on every front.” Most of us have learned to look to the self-interest of those who try to influence us. Maybe some would like not to buy ExxonMobil products, but criminal charges go too far in interfering with free speech.

Hassel “Bud” Hill Jr.; Aurora, Colo.