Aug. 14, 2026 6 AM PT
To the editor: I attended Monday’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hearing in Santa Monica (“‘California’s coast is not for sale.’ State battles Trump plan to limit coastal oversight,” Aug. 11).
It’s not “environmental extremism,” as President Trump’s lackeys insist, to oppose an expensive, time-consuming, premature reevaluation of California’s coastal management plan. Reviews generally occur each five to 10 years. California’s plan, reviewed in 2024, received glowing praise in the draft evaluation, released in 2025. It was completed but not signed before Trump assumed office. Now, Trump wants a do-over, as when he plays golf, but with greater consequences.
The fossil fuel industry is dying. It can’t compete with renewables on price, speed of development, reliability or safety, not to mention climate impact. I suspect taxpayers will be stuck bailing out oil companies when billions of dollars in stranded assets tank profitability.
Meanwhile, Sable Offshore Corp., the company Trump is trying to protect, is facing $18 million in fines for illegal activity.
Trump may want to return to the last century, but I don’t.
Tom Hazelleaf, Seal Beach
..
To the editor: Another word for the environment is nature, for which there exists a long-standing and reliable method for study, understanding and intervention. This is called science.
Failure to appreciate the power of this method can lead to environmental extremism, which is real. Consider these pronouncements of extremist dogma:
“[Climate change] is the greatest con job perpetrated on the world.”
“[The carbon footprint] is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions.”
“If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”
California is not wrong on environmental policy. The environmental extremist resides in the White House.
Martin Gelbard, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: There seems to be no good arguments for the way our federal administration treats the California coast when it comes to energy production. It has forced the stoppage of offshore wind leases that could provide clean energy to the grid and instead is pushing dirty offshore oil drilling.
One might argue an all-of-the-above approach for energy independence is best, but this isn’t the case when wind projects are being canceled. One might understand that the president considers windmills off the coastline unsightly. However, oil rigs are not beautiful and their needed onshore refineries are even uglier. They constantly send unhealthful emissions, better described as pollution, into the sky. Offshore wind is pollution-free. There is no such thing as wind spills, but oil production risks very harmful oil spills. California’s past oil spills have caused economic and environmental damage, harming local fisheries and protected areas, not to mention the lost wages due to decreased tourism.
The only conclusion I can draw for our administration to create more environmental and climate damage is to line the pockets of Big Oil. Doesn’t the health and needs of the many outweigh the profits for a few?
I oppose any further offshore drilling, especially off our beautiful California coastline. “Drill, baby, drill” is an outdated mantra when there are better energy alternatives today. Think wind and solar with battery storage, as well as wave and tidal power energy production. Clean energy must be part of our solution going forward.
Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel