Comments about ‘My view: U-CAIR initiative isn't good enough’

Thanks for printing this. If I were editing it today, I would add that HB 70 Clean Air Study sponsored by Patrice Arent must be funded. It's a very small part of the State's budget, passed the House and Senate, and they are thinking of killing it by giving no money to the Legislators' study of air pollution through the summer. Write to your legislator and insist he or she vote yes for funding HB 70. Totally critical!

This op-ed could just as easily have been written by Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, which pushes the same scary-but-unproven scenarios. I think we can safely ignore this stuff. Yes, we should be concerned about air pollution. But we also need to carefully look at the real COSTS of each proposal to reduce pollution.

If we support the severe policies advocated by LWV and UPHE, this will shut down or de-stabilize various local businesses, resulting in serious job losses and a weaker economy. That's a harsh cost, and all with little or no actual health benefits. We'll also be left with fewer resources to devote to efforts that will bring substantial PROVABLE health benefits.

The difference between the letter from LWV and the comment from Peanut Gallery is that the LWV letter is based on medical science and research, where the Peanut Gallery is fact-less opinion. He/she has no basis to back up the claim of "this will shut down or de-stabilize various local businesses, resulting in serious job losses and a weaker economy." Quite the opposite is actually true. There are examples too numerous to mention where business and industry can actually grow and prosper when they're held accountable and practice sustainable business practices. Unfortunately the fractured mindset of conservatives don't allow such things to be comprehended, which is why the GOP and Tea Party have become more closely aligned with fantasy and fact-rants in recent years.

Whether or not you think the medical research is proven, the wise approach would be to put the burden of proof on the polluters to prove that extra pollution does not cause harm. Otherwise we are all unwitting guinea pigs. How many people will have to sicken before it is proven that more pollution is unhealthy? 10? 100? 1000? When pharmaceutical companies wish to bring a new drug to market, they must first prove its safety. The same should be true of adding more chemicals to the air we all breathe.