ShareThis Page

Letter to the editor: Keep Clean Air Act intact

| Friday, Sept. 29, 2017, 1:00 p.m.
The headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington.
Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post
The headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington.

To the editor:

Breathing is entirely overrated ... at least that seems to be the stance of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is proposing to roll back some requirements of the Clean Air Act.

I am not OK with weaker vehicle emissions standards allowing more smoke to spew out the tailpipe, filling my lungs with more dirty particles in the air. Who wants more smog and pollution?

Rolling back EPA standards will not help me to breathe easier. I read a report from an environmental advocacy group that shows the air in Pittsburgh every one of two days does not meet “safe” standards for breathing. Dangerous levels of air pollution can cause asthma attacks, cardiac problems and other health issues.

If the EPA would build and strengthen emission standards, I would have happier lungs. I oppose any effort by the Trump Administration and the EPA to roll back EPA regulations and hope others will speak out and urge our elected officials to oppose rolling back standards, too.

Adrienne Weiss


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.