Issue: Miranda Devine discusses the benefits of the EPA revoking its 2009 ‘endangerment’ finding.
Miranda Devine says burning more coal will make the world a better place, citing President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as justification (“End the eco hoax is a better world,” Feb. 12).
He and others ignore the facts presented to us by meteorologists who continue to warn us that global climate change must be addressed now to prevent dire consequences for all of us.
Although experts disagree about the best way forward, the denial of climate change by 2026 is not the way forward.
Bill Beckett
Watertown, Mass.
Finally the weather illusion is dead. I hope the snake oil salesman Al Gore’s make up goes away. “Green” climate change was only the color of money these climate activists defrauded America and the world.
Thomas De Julio
Delray Beach, Fla.
I question the claim that repealing the EPA’s 2009 “risk” findings will save new car buyers $2,400 per car.
That figure is based on a biased EPA model and completely ignores the thousands of dollars in fuel savings over the lifetime of the most fuel-efficient vehicles.
The biggest concern is that in failing to steer the auto industry toward electrification, while the rest of the civilized world is making a significant transition to electric vehicles, automakers may rot, churning out obsolete gasoline-powered cars and trucks that the rest of the world outside the United States doesn’t want.
Frederick Hewett
Cambridge, Mass.
Bravo and kudos to both Trump and Zeldin for ending the Obama-era “risky” provision that will lower the cost of a car by $2,400 per car.
President Trump has long said that the whole “natural cause” thing is a hoax, and I believe him.
With every move he made to deregulate, he made life more accessible and less difficult for the average American family.
Eugene Dunn
Glen Burnie, Md.
All global temperatures show very clearly that our planet is warming at a rapid rate. Devine should stop following the unscientific theory that this sad fact is a “fake.”
Sevi Avigdor
Rumson, NJ
Issue: Attorney General Pam Bondi’s testimony at a heated House Judiciary Committee hearing.
If I were a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I would ask Attorney General Pam Bondi a series of direct questions — almost all of which require nothing more than a yes-or-no answer (“Bondi slams Dems’ losers,” Feb. 12).
Did you read the president’s September 20, 2025 Social Truth letter directing the Justice Department to prosecute certain political figures? Before that, was the DOJ planning to pursue those cases? Such questions go to the heart of prosecutorial independence and the separation of powers.
Oversight is not theater. It is a constitutional responsibility of Congress. Clear questions create a public record that can strengthen confidence in our institutions or expose weaknesses.
Denny Frederick
Laguna Beach, California.
If there was ever a question about the qualifications of the president’s Cabinet, it was answered loudly when Pam Bondi testified before the House Judiciary Committee.
Once you get past her arrogant demeanor and obvious attempts to dodge and weave unwanted questions, one quickly realizes that Pam Bondi is not only unfit to lead the Justice Department, but just another lapdog in the White House cabin.
Bob Ory
Chicago, Ill.
Want to delve into today’s news? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
