Pollution reform and the Clean Air Act
Re: “Reconsider state pollution protection,” June 29 editorial.
The Denver Post’s editorial states that a recent court decision “undermines the very reasoning for the state’s action to roll back tough air pollution restrictions.” This claim is exactly opposite of the position the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has publicly taken numerous times. I would like to clarify the state’s position on the reforms we’ve adopted to the federal Clean Air Act:
1. These reforms are necessary to continue air quality improvements in Colorado. Despite claims made by some radical environmental groups, these reforms will help Colorado improve air quality and protect jobs.
2. The department’s position has always been that these rule changes are in the best interest of air quality in Colorado. Despite more than a year of stakeholder meetings that concluded with a public hearing, no credible evidence has ever contradicted the finding that full implementation of these rules will have no adverse air quality impact.
3. The department adopted these regulations because we support them, as does the legislature. Last session, the General Assembly had the opportunity to pass legislation to overturn these rules under the normal review process for adoption of air quality regulations. No legislation was ever passed or even introduced to overturn these rules.
4. Finally, the editorial creates the impression that if any portions of the rule were overturned or remanded, then all of the rules would be re-examined. This is inaccurate. The department will, as we have always done, follow court rulings – not implement those portions that the court overturns and quickly implement those portions the court has affirmed.
We continue to work with local government, the environmental community, industry and the General Assembly to continue to protect and enhance air quality in Colorado.
Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
—————————————-
Global warming: serious problem or hype?
Re: “World should act on global warming,” July 3 editorial.
Was this a serious editorial to alert citizens to a catastrophe that is about to befall us all, or was this merely a test to measure gullibility of the American public? Who are “they” that identify the 1990s as “the hottest decade of the past dozen millennia”? What database did “they” use? How was it gathered? Who specifically of the scientific community completed the research to which your editorial refers? Were the scientists’ analyses and conclusions subjected to peer review? Isn’t absorption of carbon dioxide by the seas a good thing? Plankton and other creatures higher in the food chain must like it. And don’t the seas process excess carbon dioxide and cause it to be deposited on the ocean floor as calcium carbonate, i.e. limestone? We should be thankful for this process of nature. Sounds like your editorial writer may have been influenced by an environmental iconoclast characterized in “State of Fear,” Michael Crichton’s latest book.
Kenton Riggs, Lakewood
…
Notably absent from the list of companies beginning to do something about greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado is Xcel, which provides electricity and natural gas to customers on the Front Range.
Xcel has taken baby steps to promote energy efficiency and renewables, but when compared to its overall record in Colorado, those steps are mere window dressing for the business-as-usual practices that will cost our children and grandchildren dearly.
Enlightened utilities could lead the charge against global warming, but Xcel’s actions so far fail to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem. It’s seeking to build a polluting coal-burning plant in Pueblo that will load the atmosphere with millions of tons of carbon dioxide, and wants to immediately put the tab on our utility bills rather than financing the plant itself. Instead of a dirty coal plant and higher bills, Xcel could aggressively pursue cost-effective energy-efficiency measures that would save customers hundreds of millions of dollars while beginning to address global warming.
The approach Xcel is taking costs too much today and will leave future generations with a terrible burden.
Eric Johnson, Longmont
—————————————-
Redesign of Twin Towers’ replacement
Re: “Freedom Tower’s redesign slimmer, tougher,” June 30 news story.
The terrorists have won the war. They have instilled fear into the hearts of Americans, from which we will never recover. A perfect example is the oppressive new design of the Freedom Tower by David Childs. It was chosen over Daniel Libeskind’s original design because it was deemed “safer.” However, the new design evokes the same feeling as a prison, and perhaps it is one. From this building design, it is evident that the true tragedy is that the nation cannot move on, but will always be trapped in a prison of our own fear, always looking backward to Sept. 11.
With all the new and costly government programs which promise American safety, are all these extra precautions really necessary?
Libeskind’s original design was unique and inspiring, and recognized the foundation of liberty our country is built on, much like the Statue of Liberty. The glass was to reflect the city around it, and the spire was regally reaching toward the heavens at 1,776 feet high. The new design is a heavy, traditional skyscraper with an awkward antenna on top, obviously an afterthought.
The new design is a disgrace to the American value of freedom. It is a shame that the New York skyline will always be marred with the tragedies of Sept. 11, forever trapped by fear.
Megan Elisabeth Marrison, Boulder
—————————————-
Rumsfeld on Iraq
Re: “Success will require patience,” July 1 Donald H. Rumsfeld column.
I was disappointed to read in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s column his comparison between post-war Europe and “post-war” Iraq. The rowdyism of Americans in Germany in no way compares to the situation in Iraq. And, once again, we are supposed to believe it because he says it is so.
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Maryann Lowe, Wheat Ridge
—————————————-
Possibility of a draft
Recent polls show opposition to the war in Iraq is slowly growing while the president’s approval rating declines. One can only wonder the accelerated impact on this poll and others if there was a military draft to worry about and occupy people’s minds instead of meaningless events like the Michael Jackson trial, the escapades of a wayward bride or who Paris Hilton is now dating.
Though I disapprove of a military draft, it seems to me a volunteer army sure has made going to and staying at war much easier.
Gary Gaudin, Lafayette
—————————————-
Religious intolerance
Re: “The act of an authentic Christian,” June 28 E.J. Dionne column.
Religious intolerance should never become an issue. E.J. Dionne states the problem clearly: People in positions of authority should not use their position to promote religion. Religious beliefs should not be forced upon anyone in a workplace situation, military or civilian. If evangelical Christians feel they must tell others about their faith, they should do so in the proper venue – such as in church, or posting a bulletin about an upcoming meeting. They should not make those who believe differently uncomfortable or ridicule different beliefs, which is exactly what some do. It is fine to state your beliefs, but don’t ridicule those who do not share them.
Our Founding Fathers were very aware of religious persecution and did not want government to endorse any particular beliefs; they wanted religion free from government.
Gayle M. Spelts, Lone Tree
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
