The EPA’s latest release of a carbon rule to limit greenhouse gases from power plants is a great step toward mitigating the risks of climate change and improving the health, security and surrounding environment of U.S. citizens. The EPA estimates $55-93 billion saved in health costs with the reduction in carbon emissions, as well as a decrease in premature deaths and asthma attacks nationwide.
The main concern following the EPA’s new carbon rules involves the search for replacement sources of energy. While Rolf Westgard supports the development of risky nuclear power (“U.S. should reconsider nuclear power” 6/2), investment in cleaner, more reliable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) as well as an overall increase in energy efficiency would be a more stable approach. Since reducing carbon polluting increases health benefits and lowers cost, energy sources that continue to ensure the safety and health of citizens is the next logical step.
By supporting the EPA’s new carbon rules to promote energy efficiency and focusing on renewables rather than nuclear power, the U.S. can provide a healthy and sustainable future for its citizens.
Kelly Halpin is a Clean Energy Outreach Intern at the Sierra Club.
MinnPost welcomes original letters from readers on current topics of general interest. Interested in joining the conversation? Submit your letter to the editor. The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of MinnPost editors; they will not be able to respond to individual inquiries about letters.