Letters to the Editor 2

Letters to the Editor

 

LettersToTheEditorDear Sir:

The little piece by Martita Noon in your publication of November last, about the EPA Clean Power Plan, makes misleading assertions. She writes:

The (clean power plan) CPP “is based on the discredited theory that climate change is a crisis caused by the use of fossil fuels emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”  Then she asks (rhetorically) “What will the forced, premature elimination of America’s electric capacity do?” She continues to state that   (EPA Administrator Gina) McCarthy stated: “Nothing we do can threaten reliability.” These statements are in the first three paragraphs. 

I’ll answer these first: Climate change is not a ‘discredited theory’, but a fact. It has been determined by 97% of all climate scientists around the world as reported by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The only people that discredit this fact are non-scientific, hyper religious and/or corrupt politicians. The five IPCC reports identify CO2 and a few other greenhouse gasses as the cause.   EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said: “Continuing climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life. EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by proposing a Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source–power plants, by leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can leave a safe and healthy future for our kids. We don’t have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment–our action will sharpen America’s competitive edge, spur innovation, and create jobs.”   

She then asserts that the EPA plan will chase away more American industry, killing hundreds of thousands of jobs, and causing harsh economic consequences without having an impact on climate change. She gives the impression that there are no alternative sources for energy, but creating these alternatives will provide hundreds of thousands jobs while greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by roughly one-third in the United States. The proposal follows through on the common-sense steps laid out in President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the June 2013 Presidential Memorandum. It is expected to:

Cut carbon emission from the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for one year; Cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent as a co-benefit; Avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days—providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits; and shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.  

Allowing fear mongering does not do much for the reputation of the Ojo.

John DeWaal

Ojo Del Lago
Latest posts by Ojo Del Lago (see all)

Leave a Reply