In their guest column, Mary Jane Nielsen and Lisa Reimers concluded that they had not decided if the Pebble Mine proposal should go forward or not, but they opposed Environmental Protection Agency restrictions that could block or limit the massive gold and copper mine’s development [“Wait for the facts on Pebble Mine,” Opinion,…More
You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
A recent Seattle Times editorial stated that U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers does not represent the opinions and wishes of the people of Washington state [“Cathy McMorris Rodgers needs to take a stand for Ex-Im Bank,” Opinion, June 24], and this has surely been verified by her guest column in The Seattle Times…More
We can’t afford inaction
Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change. which affects weather, including superstorms, droughts and wildfires [“Obama’s coal plan catches up with climate policy in Olympia,” Opinion, June 4]. We, in Washington state, are vulnerable to all of these effects. The EPA regulation of power plants is a major effort to address climate change because power plants are among the largest sources of carbon pollution.
Because emissions of carbon dioxide are “free” under current economic systems, they have been dumping unlimited carbon pollution without regard to the costs. Washington is starting to address this issue by shutting down coal burning at the Centralia power plant.
But we cannot address it alone. We also receive coal-generated electricity from Montana, and addressing climate change requires a nationwide control of carbon emissions.
Costs of inaction are not something that Washington can afford. Impacts such as forest fires and acidification of the ocean are already costly, and the snowpack will likely decline to the point that agriculture will be severely affected.
William McPherson, Seattle
China and India will continue to pollute
President Obama’s proposed EPA coal power plant reduction policies areMore
The guest column in The Seattle Times charging that the EPA has failed in its duty to protect public health and the environment brings the EPA’s dilemma front and center [“How the EPA has failed its duty,” Opinion, April 12].
The EPA is attacked from the right by Republicans, as being a rogue agency attempting to over regulate, and from the left for being in the pocket of business, consistently doing its bidding.
The EPA’s principal charge is to protect America’s public health and environment, and to do so by balancing other social concerns such as economic prosperity. This is a hard, complex job. When the agencyMore
Good news for environment, fishermen As someone involved in the Bristol Bay commercial fishing industry for three decades, both as a fisherman and an owner of a supporting business, I was pleased to read that mining giant Anglo American (US) Pebble has decided to cut all financial ties to the proposed Pebble Mine project. [“Costly…More
Good news For climate activists, the last few weeks have been exciting. President Obama finally laid out a plan to address climate change. [“Obama rallies faithful ahead of August recess,” seattletimes.com, July 22.] Another bit of good news is the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the new administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. As an air-pollution…More
EPA plan is not entirely inclusive The decision facing us on Seattle’s hometown river has the potential to be transformational [“Historic pollution, epic cleanup on the Duwamish,” Opinion, March 15]. Now that cleanup is beginning, will we choose an approach that benefits just some, or all of the river’s communities? The river serves a vibrant mix…More