Sulfur dioxide can cause difficulty breathing. The EPA wants to strengthen regulations which limit its release into the atmosphere. They need our support.
Take Action to Limit Sulfur Dioxide Pollution
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new rule to strengthen the nation’s sulfur dioxide (SO2) air quality standard to protect public health. This is one of the biggest rulemakings in EPA history and provides us with a chance to clean up and possibly close down many coal plants around the country.
Click here to support the EPA’s effort to clear the air of excessive SO2!
Exposure to SO2 can aggravate asthma, cause respiratory difficulties and result in emergency room visits and hospitalization. People with asthma, children and the elderly are especially vulnerable to SO2’s effects.
*Send your comments to support an EPA proposal to improve the existing national ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide today. The 60-day comment period on the rulemaking ends this coming Monday, February 8, so we need you to act now!*
Without strict standards like the EPA has proposed, dirty coal and polluting industry don’t have any incentive to clean up their act.
Thank you for all you do,
Allison Fisher
Energy Organizer
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Phil Nakata 02.06.10 at 1:19 am
While I agree that Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide needs to be reduced or rather effectively managed, in perspective of being of seeking the root cause of both these problems, might it not be more effective to find an emission-free, carbon-neutral counterpart replacement for fossil fuels? In light of the stunning number of solutions being offered today to different symtoms of the problem, would it also not be more prudent to re-focus on the the limited few that offer the potential to make a real impact on the largest number of symtoms - especially considering that the number of such solutions is really very small?
These technologies do certainly exist, but the problem is that everyone in the business is in denial that we are running out, and accordingly would rather see the world lose such technology, that let another competitor bring it to market. That’s too bad, as these systems offer:
Extreme Productivity, Efficiency of decomposition and recovery/ reformations
Energy’ is stored as low to no-emission liquid synthetic fuels when the volume for combustion is more than needed…. creating portable energy
Flexibility of feedstock - virtually any organic waste including MSW, plastics, coal tailings, farm wasteLow Investment, Operating and Maintenance Costs
No emissions or waste water produced and no free carbon in the fertilizer solids
Safely binds chlorides (pvc) as well as sulfates and nitrates chemically to the minerals of the fertilizer solids - allows returning of mineral nutrients to the earth
No additional energy or fuels used - uses only 6 KW
so… considering I’ve added my voice to yours to support your very noteworthy proposition, please consider the perspective I am offering you. Incidentally, syngasrefining.com is one of these economically ‘disruptive’ (overly productive) companies that has threatened both the petroleum and alternative energy market showing that sutainable, renewable, environmentally friendly synthetic fuels can cost less than their fossil fuel counterparts… who’d have wanted that one to come out?
Reply
Elizabeth Barrette Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:42 am
“might it not be more effective to find an emission-free, carbon-neutral counterpart replacement for fossil fuels?”
Indeed it would. I promote green energy. Unfortunately, not everyone likes it, so I also look for ways to reduce the damage caused by energy sources that are currently popular.
Reply
Phil Nakata 02.06.10 at 1:29 am
Respectfully speaking, your site offers a good perspective on the green topics most close to your audience… Please do not stop… thanks…. from the world…
Reply