Letter to the editor: Use Clean Air Fund for clean air |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Use Clean Air Fund for clean air

Every spring, we complain about how bad our allergies are. But we don’t seem to realize that it’s more than allergies. As we push through pollen season to enjoy these summer months, we are also pushing through the negative impacts of air pollution. Allegheny County is in the top 2 percent of the United States for cancer risk from air pollution and our air is even worsening: This year the American Lung Association dropped us from 17th to 10th worst in the nation for fine particulate matter pollution.

Now the Allegheny County Health Department is planning to use millions of dollars from our Clean Air Fund — which collects fines paid by industries illegally polluting our skies — for office renovations rather than for our health, thinking we may not notice through the smoke ( “More money from Allegheny County’s ‘Clean Air Fund’ goes to office renovation” ).

Pittsburghers have a right to clean air, and we as a community have to demand from our local leaders the action we deserve. We must hold County Executive Rich Fitzgerald responsible for his failure to act and demand that the Clean Air Fund be protected and used for real programs that improve air quality and in turn reduce the negative health impacts of air pollution on our community.

Sophie Ramsey


The writer is a student at the University of Mount Union in Alliance, Ohio.

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.