Support stronger clean air regulations to ensure a sustainable future
There are many things that we can do as a community to work for a more sustainable future (Sustainable Ann Arbor forum series begins Jan. 12-Dec 26). There are important national issues, such as America’s dependence on oil, however, which we need to address at the federal level.
Fortunately, the Obama administration has plans to lessen our dependence on oil and work toward a more sustainable transportation system. In November, the administration proposed strong new pollution and fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks sold in 2017 through 2025.
The standards would cut gasoline use by as much as 23 billion gallons per year nationally. They would also cut annual global warming emissions by 280 million metric tons -- which is as much pollution as is created by 72 coal-fired power plants in a year. This would be the single biggest step our country has ever taken to combat global warming.
To make sure the standards are put into place, the Obama administration needs to hear from citizens. I urge Ann Arbor residents to make their voices heard by submitting a public comment to a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov (include “Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799” in the subject line) in support of strong clean car standards.
Jane Wiedenbeck
Environment America, Ann Arbor
Comments
Richard Wickboldt
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
The air we breathe is one of the most precious things each and every one of us needs right next to water. We should be doing whatever we can to keep both as clean as possible. Yes it may cost some money. This is the price we have to pay for the lifestyle and technology we all use each and enjoy every day, which contribute to polluting our air and water. We should not fear laws and technology which will help in keeping things clean. The past 40 decades we have increased standards and put in regulations. Plenty of jobs where made. Until recently, when the greedy 1% destroyed our country we had a very good economy. All the while with improvements in the air and water we have around us. There is no reason to fear. I have had the good fortune to travel around the world and visited a majority of the known countries. Those which did not have any regulation have appalling living conditions along with air that actually stinks and water which looks putrid. Many here in the US have no realization how lucky we are!
hank
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.
It amazes me that people argue against clean air. Are they so uninformed about the consequences of air pollution? Maybe its propaganda furnished by greedy corporations contributing to their lack of knowledge. Maybe its the republicans spinning the truth about air quality since they are controlled by the t-party types. Maybe they think the (smog bank) over large cities are another form of clouds. I will always support the chance of error on the side of Mother Earth.
jcj
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
Maybe its hype from those who stand to make money off it! But then some here think its everything else. There are obvious problems with air and water pollution but everyone wants to blame the "other" party!
InsideTheHall
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 8:03 a.m.
President Obama will hear from us in November when the American people pull the plug on amateur hour @ 1600 PA AVE.!
hank
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 5:52 p.m.
There's an old saying,I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch. Go Obama 2012!
Sparty
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 4:20 a.m.
What's with these foolish posts that suggest that the EPA is a Democratic tool or a democratic department of Government? It is a top level department in every President's cabinet regardless of party since it was established by an act of Congress. It's Secretary is confirmed by the Senate after nomination by every President, assuming he isn't forced to use a recess appointment due to their repeated failure to act upon it one way or another. To imply the EPA doesn't exist or act during Republican administrations shows the hypocrisy and complete ignorance of those posting and suggesting it.
hank
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 5:54 p.m.
Thank you, I was beginning to think just the uninformed decided to post here today.
Ross
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.
Thanks, agreed. Agreeing with a Sparty! Man, this must truly be a controversial subject.
Silly Sally
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 3:19 a.m.
Jane Wiedenbeck had the time to write her Op-Ed instead of spending all day behind a mule plowing a field- we now have gas powered trqctors. She could drive of take a gas or diesel powered bus saving much time over a horse from yesterday. So, consuming gas does benefit people, Just look at all of those in China who lived withour gasloine as Mr. Briegel advoartes and now have electricty from coal and gas powered cars and motorcycles. CO2 is not pollution, and cars pollute so little that they are not a problem, The problem are older cars and especially older cars in disrepair that pollute
G. Orwell
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 12:46 a.m.
@ shepard Although this scam is meant to fool more of the progressives/democrats (wars are meant to fool more of the republics), some republicans also pushed the scam. Like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. When there are trillions of dollars involved, you will get both sides feeding at the trough. I am sure more republics would have supported this scam to tax everyone for breathing if their constituents weren't so opposed to it.
G. Orwell
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 1:57 a.m.
There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. There isn't much of a difference between the Bush regime and the Obama regime. Obama is just a continuation of Bush/Cheney. They just talk differently in order to fool their bases. With the help of the MSMs, they have been successful. But, the alternative media is challenging the MSM propaganda. So Congress is trying to pass SOPA and PIPA to censor the Internet. Thus, don't trust either party when it comes to any federal regulations.
shepard145
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 1:44 a.m.
…and people think I'm cynical! LOL You seem to speculate about the motivations of both parties outside of truth and reality. I like to think that Republicans take positions based on reality and truth over politics, though there are some exceptions – like abortion rights. As the socialist in Chief is experiencing (not learning) the hard way, that our market economy does not tolerate central planning by government edict – ask those making the Volt and Solyndra. Unfortunately it is our tax dollars that is being wasted. Good to see that the past "Human Controlled Global Weather Fraud" (HCGWF) support by Knewt and Romney is costing them politically. There really is such a thing as truth and as the world learns that they have been played for fools by the likes of Al Gore and his profit machine, I hope there will be very specific consequences. ….though with the corrupt, criminally incompetent national press firmly entrenched in this country, I'm not sure that will happen. Wars about about national defense, which includes protecting the global economy, which is a big battlefield. Unfortunately the press and democrats have tried to revise history ever since the wars started. Not everyone if fooled. On another topic, we need to have a license requirement for reporters that forces a standard of conduct on them, along with mandatory continuing education that reinforces their place in society. If they are working to re-elect democrat party hacks, readers need to know that and toss their opinions in the trash according
shepard145
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 12:31 a.m.
This not about clean air, it's about DEMOCRAT POWER AND CONTROL OVER THE AMERICAN CONSUMERS. Stalin by so impressed. Notice that the "Greenhouse Gas" fraud is now part of DEMOCRAT LEGISLATION THAT WILL COST AMERICANS BILLIONS in "prosperity taxes"!! Jane and others are more then happy to spend what money is left in your bank account because she and obama believe they control the planet's weather, if only they can get their hands on enough of your money!! LOL Note Spain and Germany have already spent hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on the "Green Economy" fraud but have yet to hear Gore tell them how much colder the planet has gotten as a result of their "investment in global weather"!! Of course in the "real world", the answer is ZERO!! So guess what, those fools were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE because they bought this fraud. The blind leading the clueless: "…Fortunately, the Obama administration has plans to lessen our dependence on oil and work toward a more sustainable transportation system. .." Oh really? Please provide evidence that trying to convince states to build high speed rail that would compete with airline traffic, will "..lessen our dependence on oil!!" LOL Talk about a Kool Aid drinker!! LOL That is a lie. "…In November, the administration proposed strong new pollution and fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks sold in 2017 through 2025." Of course Jane has not talked to ANY automotive engineers who design engines to see what his means. I guarantee she did what the press does: she took notes. Obama lectures his adoring, salivating press and they dutifully write down and parrot every half truth and lie and you the public suffer as a result. AND YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER AS A RESULT LONG AFTER OBAMA IS VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. ...much of the democrat damage to our economy will take years to fix.
G. Orwell
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 11:58 p.m.
Let's get this straight. It is good to reduce pollutants BUT, CO2 is NOT a pollutant and it DOED NOT cause global warming. How can a naturally occurring gas be a pollutant. Gas that plants breath to survive and grow. The more CO2 the faster plants grow. Plants take in CO2 and release O2. Saying CO2 is a pollutant is like saying O2 is a pollutant. Insane! Also, the EPA is nothing more than a marketing and enforcement arm of Big Ag and Monsanto. How come the EPA won't regulate and restrict the dangerous GMOs? Many scientific studies report that GMOs are causing stirilty, cancer and other health effects. Just as planned. The EPA also did a great job with the BP oil spill. They really took the leadership roll and let BP take charge of the entire clean up and cover up. Please do not spread propaganda through the opinion column.
Ross
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
You want to talk about spreading propaganda? Really? You just said that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. This is patently false and painfully ignorant. Scientific consensus, pal, and pretty darn easy to prove. If you don't trust scientists, well then please stop using your cell phone, car, electricity, and basically any other modern convenience, because most if not ALL of them are brought to you by dedicated scientists and researchers working under government programs and grants. It doesn't matter whatsoever that it is a naturally occurring molecule - we are artificially releasing a tremendous amount into the atmosphere through our consumption of fossil fuels. Correlating exacting proof that any current climate change is caused solely by our carbon emissions is certainly no easy task. But to take your approach is akin to a blind game of Russian roulette. Maybe the bullet isn't loaded, so pull the trigger. Fun stuff - thanks for helping ruin our world, G Orwell. By the way, I agree with your general distrust of the EPA, but probably for completely different reasons.
David Briegel
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.
I'm so sorry that some are offended by the desire of the many to breathe clean air. Please explain how the world, our world, will be a better place by consuming the above mentioned 23 billion gallons of gasoline? And how sweet those additional 280 metric tons of emmissions will be for the air we breathe? Maybe TeaPublicons prefer to breathe polluted air? Golly, is it really only Democrats who desire to breathe clean air? Remember when conservation was a conservative "value"? What has happened to conservatives?
Silly Sally
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.
Someone such as David Briegel had the tiem to write his Op-Ed instead of spending all day behind a mule plowing a field- we now have gas powered trqctors. He could drive of take a gas or diesel powered bus saving much time over a horse from yesterday. So, consuming gas does benefit people, Just look at all of those in China who lived withour gasloine as Mr. Briegel advoartes and now have electricty from coal and gas powered cars and motorcycles. CO2 is not pollution, and cars pollute so little that they are not a problem, The problem are older cars and especially older cars in disrepair that pollute
jcj
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 11:57 p.m.
I figure my response is just as "intellectual" as using the same argument for ANY topic!
halflight
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
David Briegel wrote" "'Im so sorry that some are offended by the desire of the many to breathe clean air." There's nothing "dirty" about carbon dioxide-- you exhale it every day. Maybe the Democrats should save the earth and stop respirating. "Please explain how the world, our world, will be a better place by consuming the above mentioned 23 billion gallons of gasoline?" The CAFE standards do not result in less consumption of gasoline; they result in higher mileage automobiles and consumers who drive more miles. If the Democrats were serious about reducing gasoline consumption, they'd place a heavy tax on it. They won't, though, because they know the public won't support it. So the Democrats push through ineffective CAFE regulations that cripple auto manufacturers but do little reduce fossil fuel use. "Maybe TeaPublicons prefer to breathe polluted air?" Is this your "intellectual" approach? Sounds more like a name-calling pre-adolescent. Maybe Democrats prefer to have unemployed autoworkers and unnecessarily expensive automobiles, because that's what CAFE does for us. And spare us the lecture about what a conservative should be-- certainly sneering, self-righteous condescension isn't "progressive", yet that seems to be the one note some progressives play.
David Briegel
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
That is certainly an intellectual response enhancing the clear difference between the parties.
jcj
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
"Maybe Tea Publicons prefer to breathe polluted air? Golly, is it really only Democrats who desire to breathe clean air? Remember when conservation was a conservative "value"? What has happened to conservatives? " Same old rerun. David do you just auto fill any subject with this tired word for word response?
joe.blow
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
So, this is an opinion article that has no real opinion. It's really toting Obama and asking you to vote for him. Maybe aa.com should think about it's opinion columns and not advertise for the president at no cost. I wonder if aa.com will be kind to the republican candidate. To respond to the article, please provide prof that air quality is worse now than it was 20 years ago.