Controlling carbon pollution

06/03/2014 8:06 PM

06/04/2014 9:16 AM

Re "Obama's effort to reduce coal is groundbreaking, but not in California" (Editorial, June 3): A review of past efforts to reduce or eliminate significant health impacts, including environmental health, caused by the production and use of chemicals and energy resources all follow an identical course. Industries and businesses that directly profit from such activity claim such efforts cause economic peril and lasting injury and deny the scientific and medical evidence of harm.

History has proven that these cries of economic demise have been largely exaggerated and the resulting health benefits under-predicted. The views expressed by those opposed to reducing carbon pollution can also be copied and used near-verbatim from historical files by replacing a few key terms with the word "carbon." The debate on the merits of regulatory action to reduce carbon pollution is diminished when made partisan and should instead focus on its cost and benefit ratio.

-- Daniel Fong, Rancho Cordova

Editor's Choice Videos


Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service