Miranda Devine argues that burning more coal will make the world a better place, quoting President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as justification (“End of eco hoax is a world better,” Feb. 12).

She and they scorn the facts provided to us by meteorologists who continue to warn us that global climate change should be addressed now to prevent the worst effects on all of us.

While experts can disagree about the best path forward, climate-change denial in 2026 is not a path forward.

Bill Beckett

Watertown, Mass.

Finally the climate hoax is dead. Hopefully the architecture of snake oil salesman Al Gore will slither away. The only “green” climate change was the color of money these climate zealots scammed from America and the world.

Thomas De Julio

Delray Beach, Fla.

I am skeptical of the claim that revoking the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment” finding will save new-car buyers $2,400 per vehicle.

That figure is based on the EPA’s biased model and completely ignores the thousands of dollars in fuel savings over the lifetime of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

What’s really troubling is that in failing to steer the auto industry toward electrification, while the rest of the civilized world make the strategic shift to electric vehicles, domestic automakers may be rotting away, churning out obsolete gasoline-powered cars and trucks the world outside the United States doesn’t want.

Frederick Hewett

Cambridge, Mass.

Bravo and kudos to both Trump and Zeldin for repealing the Obama-era “endangerment” finding that will lower automobile costs by $2,400 per car.

President Trump has long said that most everything about the “environmental cause” is a scam, and I believe him.

With every deregulation move he makes, he makes life more affordable and less aggravating for the average American family.

Eugene Dunn

Glen Burnie, Md.

All temperatures around the world show very clearly that our planet is warming at an accelerated pace. Devine should stop following the unscientific theory that this sad reality is a “hoax.”

Sevi Avigdor

Rumson, NJ

If I were a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I would have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi a series of straightforward questions — virtually all of which require nothing more than a yes-or-no answer (“Bondi slams ‘loser’ Dems,” Feb. 12).

Did she read the president’s Sept. 20, 2025 Truth Social post directing the Justice Department to prosecute specific political figures? Before then, had DOJ been planning to pursue those prosecutions? Such questions go to the heart of prosecutorial independence and the separation of powers.

Oversight is not theater. It is Congress’s constitutional responsibility. Clear questions create a public record that can strengthen confidence in our institutions or expose weaknesses.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach, Calif.

If there was ever a question about the qualifications of the president’s Cabinet picks, it was soundly answered when Pam Bondi testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

Once you get past her arrogant demeanor and transparent attempts at dodging and weaving around unwanted questions, one quickly realizes that Pam Bondi’s not only unqualified to head up the Justice Department, but is simply another lapdog in the White House kennel.

Bob Ory

Chicago, Ill.

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.