Loading…
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Current Weather
Loading Current Weather....
Published: Saturday, 10/29/2005

Committed to improved air quality

In your recent editorial, "Dirtying the air," you assail the Bush Administration's unprecedented efforts in protecting the air we breathe. Our nation's air is the cleanest it has been in three generations, and since taking office, President Bush continues to add to our environmental success story.

Over the past 16 months, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has accelerated our nation's environmental progress by issuing two new rules that will significantly reduce coal-fired powerplant emissions: the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Visibility rule.

CAIR will reduce emissions in the Eastern U.S. by approximately 70 percent, resulting in $85 billion to $100 billion in health benefits.

The Clean Air Visibility rule controls will annually reduce approximately 1 million tons of emissions that cause soot and smog.

EPA recently announced a proposal to modernize the New Source Review (NSR) program, which will encourage installation of new, innovative technologies that promote greater energy efficiency and reliability at our nation's power plants. For years, NSR has been mired in litigation.

No one's air gets any cleaner when you're sitting in a courtroom. EPA is focused on practical, achievable results that don't get delayed by years of litigation. This is not about getting rid of NSR - it's about making it work better.

President Bush and EPA are committed to delivering results to the American people, which is why we are pushing Congress to pass Clear Skies, a permanent, nationwide solution that will amount to the largest single investment American has ever made to improve air quality for our citizens.

Bill Wehrum

Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

An odd disconnect in intelligent essay

David Baehren's Oct. 22 Saturday Essay, "Counter-group fed Nazis' views" offered an intelligent response to recent events in North Toledo.

Only one question he posed and his response [out of the entire article] seemed odd to me: "Does looting and rock throwing make me want to write a check to the United Negro College Fund? No."

Why would this incident have anything to do with considering a contribution to the United Negro College Fund?

The agitators were white. Those out of hand were black, white, and Hispanic. After an event in North Toledo, why consider denying such a positive organization as the United Negro College Fund a donation?

Who would he consider denying after a mixed riot after a football or baseball game?

The United Negro College Fund?

Gary E. Jones

Bowling Green



Guidelines: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. If a comment violates these standards or our privacy statement or visitor's agreement, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report abuse. To post comments, you must be a Facebook member. To find out more, please visit the FAQ.