Once again on the editorial page of the Sun-Gazette is a piece whining about the federal EPA and its efforts to control green-house gasses, toxic metals and other pollutants spewed from fossil-fueled power plants.
This time an editorial takes issue with the costs of the emission controls, but somehow finds that this money could be better used on other things, including health insurance or more doctor visits.
Perhaps if people were impacted by less mercury or other toxic metals, or breathed cleaner air, health insurance would be less expensive and fewer doctor visits would be necessary.
And we read all this complaining about EPA setting those risk standards, in spite of the fact that a federal appeals court ruled that EPA's actions were following laws established by Congress regarding these emissions.
In those same laws, EPA was tasked with the responsibility to determine what standards are needed to protect the health of the public.
So, if there's an issue with how EPA does things, complain to Congress, because they told EPA exactly what they wanted done and how to do it. This is finally mentioned in the last line, but why all the EPA-bashing in the first 12 paragraphs?
Surprising was that there was no mention of further controls of the green-house gasses. The U.S. is the second largest producer of green-house gas.
Shortly there will be further emission controls on existing fossil-fueled power plants to reduce those emissions, and I'm certain there will be yet another editorial whining about those standards.
Without a significant reduction of green-house gas worldwide, there will be a lot to complain about in the near future heat waves, polar vortexes, rising seas inundating coastline communities, drought, and food shortages, to name some of the worst.
The human strife that results will far outweigh the price tag of emission controls.
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom