ShareThis Page
Off-base on cross-state |

Off-base on cross-state

| Monday, August 27, 2012 8:59 p.m

The maturity level in the editorial “Slapping the EPA: Rogue & lawless” (Aug. 23 and is regrettable at the very least. The appeals court decision is pure politics (two Bush appointees, one Clinton appointee), and to think that a 2-1 decision is somehow a unanimous referendum on the EPA as a whole is to place the rule of law on the back of a single judge.

Should the dissenting judge be tarred and feathered? Do you intend to revoke her charter?

The completely legal and binding Clean Air Act allows for the regulation of pollution across state lines. It is an admittedly difficult task. This is why the rule was overturned — not because the EPA threatens “the very integrity of the electric grid and national security itself,” but because air toxics from multiple sources can mix in the atmosphere and create more dangerous gases with no single release point.

The EPA has not “hijacked remedies reserved to the states,” as it was attempting to do something outside the jurisdiction of a single state. This is why we have a federal government.

This editorial is so off-base it almost makes an unintentionally accurate observation. The EPA is given far too much credit as a monolith of regulation, while earlier this summer, it took a lawsuit from 11 states to force the agency to update the 15-year-old soot rule that is required by law to be revised every five years.

Russell Zerbo


The writer is a Clean Air Council ( support-staff member.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.