Prohibition or Protection?

With only two months down, and ten to go, it's fair to say that in some aspects, we are still in the “dressing room”. In a sense, we are in the process of exploring different ideas and policies to see how they fit before we settle into the groove of 2011. Naturally, decisions that are made during this stage are critical since they will have an impact on this year as well as those to come. Given the current state of the economy, some of the most critical decisions are being made regarding budgets and it’s safe to say that tensions are running high. Towards the end of February, the House proposed a spending budget that would minimize the availability of funds for a handful of conservation efforts. The lengthy list of unsightly suggestions included budget cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, The Land and Water Conservation Fund, and other key conservation agencies.

The most disturbing suggestion, however, was the prohibition of the EPA’s Clean Air Act, an ongoing effort to impose restrictions which ultimately limit the unsightly environmental and health risks associated with greenhouse gases. In a letter directed to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, members of the Senate voiced their opinions that “ill-timed or imprudent regulations of greenhouse gases may squander critical opportunities for our nation, impending the investment necessary to create jobs and position our nation to develop and produce its own energy”. Interestingly enough, the “ill-timed imprudent regulations” that the letter refers to was the cause of the prevention of 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, and 1.7 million asthma attacks in the year 2010 alone. Plenty of organizations have assembled petitions for people who would like to voice their opinion regarding the attempt to prohibit the Clear Air Act, and other conservation efforts. If interested, you can sign a petition at Change.org, Care2.