Letters to the Editor: January 7, 2015
The Jan. 1 Point of View “ Why N.C. should fight EPA” revealed utter indifference for the future of North Carolina.
While the article purports to tell “the backstory” of these rules, the words “climate change” do not appear. Yet, the administration proposes the rules in order to reduce emissions from the largest contributor to climate change: coal-fired electricity plants. That’s the backstory.
North Carolina has a 300-mile coastline supporting commercial and recreational fishing, tourism and other industries. Within 30 years we anticipate sea level rises ranging from 4 inches to 12 inches, depending upon location. These increases plus seasonal storm surges can have devastating economic impacts on businesses and coastal residents.
Efforts to reduce the causes of climate change and its destructive effects should be welcomed, not opposed. But the writer expresses no concern for the future well-being of our state.
Future generations will face numerous challenges including food and water shortages due to changes in rainfall and temperatures; more frequent and intense storms; higher energy bills; and more insect-borne diseases.
We the people must convey to legislators our concern for the future of North Carolina and its people, for the voices of short-term self-interest could not care less.
Stephen Jurovics
Raleigh
Leave a Reply