Letters to the editor - Feb. 6
Benefits of cleaner air
Your Jan. 27 article “Utility to shut power plants” cited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as the reason for FirstEnergy’s decision to close four Ohio power plants — but didn’t acknowledge that the new standards will save lives and neglected to mention that FirstEnergy has chosen to close these facilities several years before the new standards require compliance.
The new standards are the first ever at the national level to limit power plant emissions of air toxics such as mercury, a neurotoxin that is especially harmful to children.
When fully implemented in 2016, the new standards will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 3,100 emergency room visits for children.
As a result, the standards will provide between $37 billion and $90 billion in health benefits each year — far outweighing the costs of compliance.
Power plants have four years to comply with the new standards, which means facilities are not required to come into compliance until well after the September 2012 date FirstEnergy set as a deadline for retiring these plants.
Of course, the new standards do not require any facility to close. Companies making the business decision to retire a facility are making that decision based on multiple factors, among them market conditions, which are unrelated to these long-overdue standards.
The standards were 20 years in the making and rely on the use of widely available, proven pollution control technology — equipment that is already used at nearly 60 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power plants.
The facilities that First Energy plans to retire are between 40 and 65 years old, and most have never installed modern pollution controls.
The benefits of clean air protections are not just statistics or abstract concepts.
These standards provide significant health benefits by ensuring cleaner air — and they do so while offering facilities four years to install pollution control equipment that has been available for decades.
Susan Hedman
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
Chicago
Demagogues for the defense
It is bewildering that many Americans justify Marines urinating on the corpses of a Taliban fighter. Not surprisingly, some right-wing media demagogues have been vigorous in their efforts to justify such behavior by evoking recent atrocities committed by Muslims.
Sean Hannity obscured the distinction between hating one’s enemy and acting out in such a crude manner when he wrote that the Taliban “have a longstanding history of brutality, so I say it’s understandable that those Marines would have a natural hatred for those who have killed their fellow Marines.”
Radio reactionary Michael Savage insisted that the four Marines deserve a medal and labeled Marine Commandant James F. Amos “coward” for ordering an investigation.
Never mind that Savage never served the nation in uniform, or in any capacity.
In the same spirit, radio host Dana Loesch applauded the Marines, complained about the outrage against the incident and then declared that she would have urinated on the dead bodies, too.
Loesch’s comments were so extreme that even Rush Limbaugh would not defend her. Limbaugh called the actions of the Marines indefensible and admitted that they violated the rules of war, not to mention human decency.
Limbaugh said, “Well, there’s a video … of some U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of Taliban combatants in Afghanistan. Peed on them. And of course it’s Marines. It violated the rules. There’s no defense of this.”
When Rush Limbaugh becomes a voice of reason, could the Mayan calendar be right about the end of the world?
Mark Ira Kaufman
Silver Lake
Tracking Tressel
While it is at it, maybe the University of Akron can make Jim Tressel a tenured member of the faculty as professor of lying and cheating.
That must be part of the “vision” for student success UA President Luis Proenza mentioned.
Richard Platt
Fairborn
Breathe new life into government
The 2012 elections have brought one issue to the forefront: the role of government. At a time when Congress is so hopelessly deadlocked, many Americans have lost hope in the system.
The Republican presidential candidates have homed in on this sentiment, constantly attacking the role of government in American life. In short, they seek to make government irrelevant.
This view of government is as historically inaccurate as it is dangerous. Since the birth of our country, government has been a force for positive social change.
It was a strong government that outlawed so many forms of discrimination, gave workers rights and created a safety net for all Americans.
However, this noble tradition has been subverted by corrupt politicians and the special interests which own them. The power of unchecked greed has rendered our government incompetent to solve the crucial issues of our day.
The solution is not to make government even weaker, but to breathe new life into it with more civic involvement. Cutting whole government agencies will not solve our problems.
A strong government is an effective government, but only if we all participate. As we enter a new year, the real question is whether the people of this historic union will demand real leadership.
Only then can we truly tackle the tremendous obstacles that face our nation.
Shammas Malik
Akron
Under investigation, out of money?
I understand that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that it will not provide funds to any organization under investigation.
I also understand that the Susan G. Komen foundation has given several million dollars to Penn State, which is now under investigation.
Is it going to demand the return of its money from the university, which covered up child molestations?
Ernest Michaels
Cuyahoga Falls
