Coal is bad for families
The indifference of the Army Corps of Engineers to the continued destructive global and regional effects resulting form the mining, shipping and burning of coal is also gross indifference to the health of children everywhere. [“Corps review won’t weigh impact of coal beyond NW,” NW Wednesday, June 19.]
As they grow, these children increasingly bear the negative results. To promote coal as a means of creating family-wage jobs is to license the deterioration of family health.
Guy Burneko, Seattle
Coal is harmful
Who is responsible for stopping global warming? The Army Corps of Engineers seems to be saying, ”not us!”
This is wrong. American policy should require every government decision to include the climate consequences, and officials should choose the low-carbon alternative.
Corporate investment in producing and installing solar and other clean-energy technologies instead of shipping coal would provide more employment, increased exports and higher profits.
Coal burned anywhere in the world kills baby oysters, shrivels crops, floods riverbanks and torches forests. For the Army Corps to ignore the emissions of burning coal relieves the coal industry of responsibility for its pollution, and we, the citizens, bear the consequences.
Louise Stonington, Seattle