When the Environmental Protection Agency announced the carbon pollution rules for coal-fired power plants last month, they mentioned asthma and how asthmatic children who live near power plants are impacted every day by pollutants.
The EPA’s carbon pollution rules are needed to prevent the worsening effects of climate change. Leading public health organizations, such as the American Medical Association, American Lung Association, and the American Public Health Association, support action to address climate change as one of the most serious threats to human health.
The recently published National Climate Assessment dedicated an entire chapter to identifying the health consequences linked to uncontrolled carbon pollution. We are already experiencing longer wildfire seasons, higher pollen counts and increased ozone levels, all of which make life for people with asthma and allergies unbearable. From increasing the incidence of heart attacks to driving up hospitalization rates, the manner in which carbon pollution compromises air quality has a wide and lethal reach.
Responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s carbon emissions, no other industry produces more carbon pollution than America’s coal-fired power plants. There are currently no limits on how much carbon pollution these plants can pump into the air we breathe.
To reduce our carbon emissions, the EPA has proposed common sense limits for carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants. These limits will not only protect public health, but will ensure that power generation in our country becomes cleaner and more efficient.
In addition to helping address climate change, the EPA’s proposed plan would immediately reduce the burden of air pollution in America by preventing up to 4,000 premature deaths and 100,000 asthma attacks in the first year these standards are in place.
We urge the EPA to finalize its carbon cleanup standard within the next year as we continue to work with our health partners across the country to support setting a standard that best safeguards the public’s health. Anything less shortchanges our children, our health and our future.
American Lung Association
Montana Public Health Association
Last Updated on Thursday, 07 August 2014 11:51
One man used words and ideas on democracy to express what he believed in. He devoted his life to serving the public and defending our country. He failed to cite his sources.
The other man used words and votes to incite and shut down our government. He devoted his life to accumulating great wealth and protecting the privileged. He failed our country.
No man is perfect. No man. But I trust my vote not to the hands of the critic, but with the “Man in the Arena” “... whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood ... who errs ... who spends himself in a worthy cause ... ,’” as Teddy Roosevelt said.
“Who spends himself in a worthy cause?”
John Walsh spends his life serving each and every one of us. If only we “spent” half as much as he ... what a better world it could be.
Support this man, John Walsh ... he believes in us.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karen Lazetich Moses
Last Updated on Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:28
Appreciate your column of May 29.
Somebody should remind Elena Kagan the job of God is taken and just shut up and sit down – another Obama appointee.
Put Roger Clawson and Ed Kemmick to work more often. Enjoy their writing. You can count on no lies when words come from their pens.
Last Updated on Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:27
I enjoyed reading your editorial on the online-subscription attempts by the Gazette [Outpost, July 10]. Your take on it was both informative and well stated. Online income certainly exists. But whether that income is small as a butterfly or big as a Boeing, it must continually be chased. It’s always instant in both its growth and in its vanishing. So-called giants of online industries know this and spend a lot of their would-be profits on technological running shoes, trying to stay fast enough on their feet to survive.
Most people are willing to pay for what they think they need and want. They’re reluctant to pay for what they can get free by clicking somewhere else. So long as news and whatever passes for news is offered without cost on the Internet, few newspaper readers will be want to pay for it. Regional news may not be easy to find online, but it can be found, because people on social networks love to inform the world of everything they think they know.
Local news publications in print accomplish what the Internet doesn’t. They more effectively package local information and get it back into the community and even into the home. There it remains in a passive state until someone reaches out for it. But it’s there, waiting. The Internet, that world-wide wonder, fails to do this. On the Internet people tend to search for and “consume” only what interests them. Internet users end up viewing, hearing and reading a lot about whatever they’re looking for at the time, and very little about what’s going on in the local neighborhood.
Social media giants know this already, and some are trying to act on it. So far, though, local newspapers still have the edge. Skilled reporting on real events, and developments meaningful to the local community makes the newspaper much more effective as a local information source. Many newspapers need to communicate this fact more effectively.
When a newspaper’s ink-on-paper edition is combined with a free online edition, then both the readers and advertisers benefit. Readers have more options for access to reliable local information, and advertisers gain a wider exposure to their own message. By restricting online access in any way, a newspaper chokes its own potential for continued growth by removing a potentially unlimited reach for advertisers. For an advertiser, a smaller reach means fewer results, which creates a greater reluctance to continue paying for the same advertising source.
The wonder of the Internet for any enterprise is opportunity. Used effectively, it becomes a fine tool for communication, an added arm for any local newspaper, a vast archival library for past articles, while offering unlimited potential for expanding the range and content of every new edition. It offers every newspaper the opportunity to become as great as its contributors choose to make it.
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 July 2014 11:11
Thank you for running the 2014 Pond Tour benefit for ZooMontana in your events calendar on June 26. The tour was a success; there were many visitors; and the zoo will benefit with a cash donation.
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 July 2014 11:11
During the first debate, one thing that John Lewis mentioned was that he has received campaign donations from every county in Montana. Not only have all 56 counties supported Lewis’ campaign, but he has also traveled to all of them to meet with community leaders and listen to their individual, local concerns. This is truly a Montana home-grown campaign.
On the other hand, Ryan Zinke’s campaign finance concerns me. It’s no small secret that Zinke benefits greatly from Special Operations for America, a super PAC that Zinke himself founded. On top of his questionable PAC money, Zinke has spent much of his time raising money in California, Florida, Texas, and from large out-of-state corporations that don’t have Montana’s best interests in mind.
I understand that today’s elections are going to draw money from outside of the state, but it seems to me that Ryan Zinke is more focused on out-of-state money than he is on Montana. I know that John Lewis will put the people of his home state first just as he has done so far in his campaign.
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 July 2014 11:10