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]