08 February 2012

States Oppose New Pollution Reduction Rules

On Monday, ENews Park Forest reported that sixteen largely polluting states filed a lawsuit to prevent new smog rules from being enacted. Much of their desire to do so was to save big utilities and coal companies that gave an estimated $5 million in contributions to governors and attorneys general who supported them. Personally, I find it appalling that these states would put money ahead of environmental protection and public health. How do you feel about this?

2 comments:

  1. I feel that is pretty awful, too!! However, hopefully the media exposure of this will change the outcome of the situation. It is also interesting to note that 7 of those states are in the southeast, and there aren't any states on the west coast or in the New England area on the list.

    I also know that Georgia doesn't require annual smog tests on cars like in California.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In political debates, it is always a difficult decision in attempting to promote healthy and environmentally healthy policy when the primary financial supporters of one's campaigns are those working directly against the environment. However, it is a question of environmental ethics when deciding where one falls on the spectrum. Personally, I feel that politicians owe their loyalty to those that have elected them over those who financially back them, as they only represent a small minority of the state. I think that when environmental issues lead to issues of public health, it is up to policy makers to intervene with air pollution contributing corporations.

    ReplyDelete