Letter to the editor: Term limits & environment |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Term limits & environment

In response to Robert Hawk’s letter “Lasting damage from gas, coal” (Nov. 12, TribLIVE) about not learning from the past: It’s all about money and lobbyists. Letter-writer Ron Slabe ( “Gas industry not paying ‘fair share’,” Oct. 25, TribLIVE) hit the nail squarely with his facts about fracking. We won’t know for sure what the effects will be for our kids and grandkids.

Lobbyists tell our state and federal lawmakers, “Here’s the money; if you want re-elected, then this is what you do.” It’s that simple. Politicians get their pockets lined and get all kind of perks from these industries, which get their permits to drill and mine no matter the consequences to the public. The politicians keep getting re-elected. That’s why we need term limits.

More avocates like Slabe and Hawk need to speak up. The deadly chemicals used in fracking are scary, and the pollution to our waterways is frightful, to say the least. We all know the pollution and other damage mining coal has caused, and we haven’t learned from the past. It all comes back to the almighty dollar. These industries reap the profits, and we pay for the damages — and our state legislators turn their heads.

So what’s the answer? Reel in the lobbyists and make laws to limit their powerful grip on our elected officials, and you might see some laws passed to protect the environment. But I doubt that will happen; they have to much power.

Term limits, people; term limits.

John Tierney

Allegheny Township

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.