Letter to the editor: Destruction of ‘public good’ continues | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Destruction of ‘public good’ continues

The article “EPA proposes eased Obama-era regulations on coal-ash pollution” (Nov. 4, TribLIVE) detailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to roll back regulations on coal-based power plants that would allow them to once again pour waste into our nation’s waterways, affecting the health of millions of Americans.

This makes no sense either economically or environmentally. The unsubsidized cost of renewable solar and wind power is now cheaper that the unsubsidized cost of fossil fuels in every state in the union. And because there are no greenhouse gas emissions to warm the planet from renewable energy sources, nor toxic waste, there is no good reason for the federal government to be making these reversals of regulations; they are spiteful and trying to prop up a dying industry.

What the federal government should be doing is implementing legislation that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create millions of “green” jobs, and improve the health of Americans through clean air and water. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA) does that by “putting a price on carbon” and returning the revenue to all Americans through a monthly dividend. This bill, introduced in the House in January, now has almost 70 co-sponsors, with that number growing almost daily.

If you’re feeling anxious about the climate crisis, get involved. Learn more about EICDA at www.energyinnovationact.org and call your member of Congress and senators, urging them to quickly pass this legislation. There’s not much time left to keep the planet from overheating.

Bruce Cooper

Cranberry Township

The writer is group leader of the Slippery Rock chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.