Smoke rises from the Colstrip Steam Electric Station, a coal burning power plant in in Colstrip, Mont. (Associated Press file)
Re: “Stop the EPA’s carbon power grab, Colorado,” July 19 guest commentary.
Stuart Sanderson’s commentary on the Supreme Courtap EPA/mercury ruling makes some valid points. While I agree with him that we should look at the big picture, Sanderson’s own comments fail to do so. First off is the very existence of the Environmental Protection Agency. Without the EPA we would look like China. Taking that one step further, ignoring the simple fact that burning coal introduces toxic levels of mercury into the air we breathe is irresponsible. Or how about the acid rain that is damaging our ecosystem? The health care and environmental costs to society from burning fossil fuels must be part of the equation.
We as a people and a nation should come together and discuss our energy future in a fair manner that takes into account all environmental, economical and social issues. Our future depends on it.
Dave Peregoy, Clark
This letter was published in the July 25 edition.As Stuart Sanderson notes, the Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called Clean Power Plan can’t withstand even the most basic cost-benefit analysis, with a potential $479 billion burden on energy consumers in exchange for a tiny impact on global carbon emissions. Today it is Colorado’s coal miners in the EPA’s cross-hairs, but all Coloradans would feel the resulting double-digit increases on electric rates. Itap disappointing that we must appeal to the common sense of courts to protect us from a federal agency’s overreach.
David L. Kanagy, Englewood
The writer is executive director of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration.
This letter was published in the July 25 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
