LETTERS: On the Paris Accord and ‘fake news’

Support the Paris Accord

As an architect, one of my key goals is designing sustainable buildings for current and future generations that will live and work in the structures I’ve created. A sustainable and resilient environment is one of the best solutions we have to combat the effects of climate change.

That’s why I’m so concerned about President Donald Trump’s possible plan to withdraw the United States from The Paris Agreement. One hundred and ninety-five countries, including the United States, adopted this first-ever universal climate deal in 2015 that sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change.

Architects have a unique role to play in achieving the agreement’s goals. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, buildings are responsible for 73 percent of all electricity consumption in the United States, with about half of that coming from commercial buildings. American architects are focused on designing buildings that are energy efficient and in some cases, nearly carbon neutral. We have worked hand-in-hand with the federal government to help make our profession and country competitive global leaders in the quest for an energy efficient built environment.

Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement would be a major step back for America’s global leadership in sustainable design.

Nestor Enrique Camacho, Mission

Define ‘fake news’

The Monitor emphasizes that it publishes no “fake news.” OK. Is there a difference between fake news and biased news? Ever since the last national election, readers of The Monitor have seen a daily bashing of Donald Trump. While surely no one considers Trump to be a canonized saint, it would seem that some of his actions could have a positive side, but we seem to read only the negative.

For months, the mainstream media have been tainting Trump with unsubstantiated ties to Russia, but have carefully avoided publicizing the verifiable Bill and Hillary Clinton deals with Russia, such as the Uranium One scandal and John Podesta’s Joule Energy profits with Putin’s oligarchs. Before the election, the media exploded with coverage of an old recording of lewd talk between Trump and a reporter, but there was no coverage of the Clintons hobnobbing with a convicted pedophile. These are just a few of the many scandals that have swirled around the Clintons for decades. Then there is the rhetoric of public figures, such as pop diva Madonna at the Women’s March on Washington saying she has “thought a lot about blowing up the White House,” then followed up with unprintable vulgarity.

Recently there was a large article, “Exposing the ‘deceit,’” about the DEA’s falsifying the story about the deadly 2012 attack in Honduras. But nowhere does the article point out that Barack Obama was president and Erik Holder was Attorney General during that time. So is there bias?

Edna Lea Killam, McAllen