This email says the sender "feels" that the clear skies initiative will not
protect our air quality.  I would like to see him do better than that.

Feelings and belief is not enough. Surely he has consulted science.Where's
that science?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Winterwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 3:43 PM
Subject: Fwd: Senator Tom Harkin on Bush's "Clear Skies" program


> >
>> >     The right to breath clean air is something all
>> citizens should be
>> guaranteed.  Poor air quality has negative
>> consequences for the health of
>> humans and the environment.  Diminished air quality
>> has lead to a such
>> negative effects as asthma, acid rain, global
>> warming and a general
>> decline in the standard of living in some areas.
>>
>>       The Clean Air Act has played an important role in
>> counteracting air
>> pollution.  This law sets health based standards for
>> air quality,
>> specifies emissions limits for pollutants, phases
>> out use of
>> ozone-depleting chemicals and outlines timetables
>> for local, state and
>> federal authorities to enact and enforce these
>> standards.  Unfortunately,
>> the Bush Administration has undermined this bill by
>> weakening its
>> enforcement and launching new initiatives in
>> Congress, such as the "Clear
>> Skies" initiative, which will undermine the scope
>> and effect of the Clean
>> Air Act.  I oppose the Administration's "Clear
>> Skies" plan because I feel
>> it doesn't adequately limit greenhouse gas
>> emissions.  Instead, I believe
>> a more stringent cap should be placed on carbon
>> dioxide emissions as well
>> as expediting the reduction of sulfur dioxide and
>> mercury.  Clear evidence
>> demonstrates these chemicals have negative effects
>> on public health, even
>> in small amounts, and the public welfare should not
>> be compromised by
>> delaying stringent and reasonable controls on these
>> substances.
>>       I believe improving air quality hinges upon
>> developing renewable
>> resources that reduce polluting emissions.
>> Improving air quality through
>> cleaner burning fuels such as ethanol, and biodiesel
>> is a win-win
>> situation for Iowa's economy and environment.  We
>> can also expand the use
>> of clean, renewable electricity sources such as
>> wind, solar, geothermal
>> power and abundant biomass crops.  We can improve
>> energy efficiency in
>> industry and in our homes.  We can support
>> development of hydrogen
>> fuel-cell cars, which send only water out of the
>> tailpipe.  We also need
>> to encourage agricultural practices that remove
>> carbon dioxide from the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>>       While short term gains can be made through the
>> enforcement of the Clean
>> Air Act, I believe the long term solution to cleaner
>> air is found in the
>> development of alternative sources of energy.  I am
>> optimistic this two
>> pronged strategy will improve the health of our
>> nation's citizens and
>> environment.
>>
>>       Again, thanks for sharing your views with me.
>> Please don't hesitate to
>> let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns
>> you.
>>
>>
>>                                       Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>                                       Tom Harkin
>>                                       United States
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
> e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
> latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
> editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]