1

From: Mike Garelik [mgarelik@comcast.net]

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:05 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Coal power is destructive from mine to smokestack.The time to eliminate this 19th century 

technology in favor of a serious commitment to 21st century technology and major incentives 

to gather the "low hanging fruit" of increased efficiency is NOW. 

EPA should be protecting the environment and public health in a timely manner, no more 

endless studies and waiting to be sued to effect implementation of improved standards! 
2

From: JUDITH KOLLIGIAN [judyarmenia@verizon.net]

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:12 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

please do everything in your power to phase out the burning of coal for power 

generation. 

as an asthma sufferer I know first hand the health toll of burning coal. 

also we MUST MOVE ALONG FAST towards a just transition to renewable 

energy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

thank you. 

judy kolligian 

Jamaica Plain, Mass. 

 
3

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Grant Glazer [glazer.ag@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 2:28 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 02:28 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Grant Glazer 

Email: glazer.ag@gmail.com

Comments: I applaud those who support these updated standards as champions of a cleaner, 

better future. Our planet is too precious a resource to risk for a few short-term financial 

savings, especially when the risks associated with climate change and air pollution will 

likely cost us millions in lost ecosystem services. Please keep fighting for our sustainable 

future! 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
4

From: Peggy da Silva [peggyda@sonic.net]

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:01 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: no to coal

The climate crisis is the biggest threat to our health and wellbeing on our planet. 

I urge you to implement the most stringent and expensive rules possible to phase out coalfired power plants. 

Thank you. 

Peggy da Silva 

153 Vasquez Avenue 

San Francisco 94127 
5

From: Edyth Koch [ediekoch@msn.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:56 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

To: EPA

 

From: Edie Koch, Seattle, WA 

 

Subject: It's Time 

 

Let's end burning coal for energy. Let's take the expense of extracting, hauling and transporting dirty coal and put those 

combined resources towards clean energy. Corporations who make huge profits from this outdated and dangerous 

method of providing energy would be giving their children and grandchildren a future of better air to breathe and a safer 

environment for all. How about the cost to the EPA (taxpayers) surveillance, paper work and man hours to bring errant 

companies to follow the rules which are so easily broken with little fines when found guilty. 

 

We see what climate change is doing to our country, much of which is the result of burning fossil fuels. To the expense 

listed above, add the costs of flooding damage, hurricanes, tornadoes, rising seas from melting ice, to R & D in alternative 

forms of green energy. We have to stop the assault to our air and water. We need to start now to fund research to 

benefit our environment instead of continuing the practice of looking the other way and not acknowledging that we need to 

change our ways. Continuing to extract coal, transporting the product long distances in box cars to be shipped to China or 

elsewhere is total folly. If Corporations really care about future generations, the members who sit on their Boards should 

discipline their greed and do the right thing. To these Board Members, I pose the question, "Do you want to help save 

planet earth and future generations or are you only interested in getting richer today by not using your privileged positions 

to make a difference?"

 

 
6

From: Amy Maloney [amymaloney1@mac.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 2:04 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: New Proposed Rules for Coal Fired Plants

I am very pleased with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. Please do the right thing and do not back down 

in any way. I look forward to your announcement that the new rules are in place. This is more important than any other issue 

regarding climate change that we've faced as a country. 

Thank you, 

Amy Maloney 

Shy Lotus Jewelry Design 

www.shylotus.com

amymaloney1@mac.com

phone: 301-537-4635 

fax: 301-587-8838 
7

From: Vivien Sharples [vivs@igc.org]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:36 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Input on coal fired power plants rules

I am opposed to coal fired power plants, as coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US. We need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as possible. The EPA rules can help make that transition happen. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. Make the rules as stringent as possible.
8

From: Jamie Brooks [jbrooks_2000@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:16 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Public Listening for EPA Coal Power Regulation

To Whom It May Concern, 

As a concerned citizen about the impacts on our climate from coal -powered electricity, I'd 

like to offer the EPA my complete support of the new carbon regulations issued by the 

President, and to offer my support of the climate action plan put forth by him this summer 

and to support EPA efforts to implement the plan. 

You are welcome to call on me for any additional support as needed as the coal industry 

attempts to thwart efforts to regulate carbon from their plants. 

Regards, 

Jamie Brooks 

Sent from my iPhone 
9

From: Tomer Adini [tatomer@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:11 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Transitioning into the future

It is time to make the switch to renewable resources. Our society is not efficient enough to continue with 

outdated power plants. Massachusetts is so close to becoming what America must become for our grandchildren 

to have a stable home on this earth. We have to take a step forward and stop these criminals from polluting our 

world. Let us finally take that needed step forward to invest in our future. 

Sincerely Brookline High School Alumnus, 

Tomer Adini 

-
10

From: John Sarter [sarterfish@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:18 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Hello and good day,

 I have read the 2012 proposed CO2 limits and see that the EPA is considering backing off of those requirements from 1000 tons to 1100 Tonnes of CO2 per megawatt. I am appalled that the EPA would consider a reduction of the original target, which was quite frankly not enough to begin with. Beyond the effects on atmospheric global warming and associated harmful symptoms and effects, the associated CO2 increase in our oceans is acidifying those oceans at a rate that has not been seen since the last major species extinction event on Earth. This acidification is directly caused by CO2 in our 

atmosphere, and as such all measures to reduce CO2 feasibly possible need to be taken, regardless of initial cost. Our oceans provide 50% of all oxygen in our atmosphere, and are the basis for our entire food chain and the origin of all life on Earth. We cannot afford to let our Oceans die, and that is what is occurring. I'd like to bring your attention to the following ; 

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-scientists-deadly-trio-ailing-oceans.html

In addition to this, please take these following links and watch when you have time, perhaps at home and share it with your children as well... and let them know what you are doing about it. 

http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/aboutthefilm.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMZfCKuFIQ#t=40

-- 

John Sarter 

Sarter Construction & Design, Inc. 

Ca. Lic. # 595917, since 1987 

Off The Grid Design, LLC 

http://www.offthegriddesign.org/

"Creating a Sustainable Future"

Sol-Lux Alpha, LLC

https://www.honestbuildings.com/sol-built-alpha#.UjepntWnapg

San Francisco Chapter Liaison 

Passive House Alliance U.S. 

http://phaus.org/

Microgrid development Group

San Francisco Bay Area

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Micro-Grid-Development-Group-San-4981248?trk=my_groups-b-grp-v

Consulting at;

http://www.zintro.com/expert/john-sarter
11

From: Martha Jaegers [jamartha@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:06 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: listening sessions

 Dear EPA: 

 

Thank you for scheduling listening sessions to help develop regulations to bring public oversight 

of unregulated carbon polluters. While I have no specific solutions, I do know the following, and I encourage 

you to make the most stringent rules possible for the reduction of carbon in our atmosphere: 

 

 * Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States—pollution that 

causes climate change. 

 

 * We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution. 

 

 * Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year. 

 

 * More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards. 

 

 * Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change. 

 

 * More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue. 

 

 * We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon. 

 

 

Many sincere thanks, 

 

 Martha Jaegers 

 4095 Robert ave. 

 St. Louis, MO 63116 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
12

From: Denise D Anne [ddanne1@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:54 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: COAL FIRED PLANTS NOT THE ANSWER

I am suggesting that since we all, rich and poor of every nationality can not choose the air we breathe that the best thing is to reduce or 

eliminate coal-fired plants. 

Sincerely, 

Denise D'Anne 

351 Guerrero St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 
13

From: Mark Roest [marklroest@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 8:37 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Don't let the coal lobby steamroll you!

Dear U.S. EPA Administrators and Staff, 

Please stand your ground against the coal lobby when they try to block, deflect or diminish the force of your 

new rules for coal-fired power plants. They are business and industrial dinosaurs, no longer even competitive, 

on top of the fact that there is no conceivable way that burning coal is good public policy today. It boils down to 

a stark picture, of people addicted to their power fighting tooth and nail to retain it, against the combined, often 

expressed, will of the vast majority of the citizens of this nation. 

Thank you very much for the stand you have taken; now please accept our expressions of support for 

maintaining it. 

Regards, 

Mark Roest 

ZIP 94403 
14

From: Frances Mead (aka m. czerniski) [lycett8@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 8:25 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: End Coal Fired power plants!!!

We must end our use of coal ASAP. Coal fired power plants have no place in the 21st century -- we should 

never have instituted them here in the first place. We need to abandon this sort of toxic and dangerous fuel. 

 Please do all you can to institute clean energy and abandon all use of fossil fuels. 

Thank you, 

Frances Mead 

3953 S. Americus Street 

Seattle, Wa. 98118 
15

From: Mary Lou Dauray [mldauray@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:56 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: against coal-fired plants

I am against those who wish to develop, encourage and finance the growth of coal usage. I am 

100% behind the development and use of clean energy. 

I also want to raise my voice against those who wish to transport coal in the northwest by train.

Thank you, 

Mary Lou Dauray 

-- 

Mary Lou Dauray

www.maryloudauray.com

http://maryloudaurayartblog.blogspot.com
16

From: Marc Vendetti [marc@2910.org]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Get off coal

Dear EPA Representative, 

Coal is a scourge. We need to stop burning it as soon as possible, and in the meantime we need to 

restrict the carbon emitted from power plants that use it as much as possible. 

I support the strictest possible regulation. 

Let’s put our attention on developing clean, renewable energy instead. 

Thank you, 

Marc Vendetti marc@2910.org 

Cell: 415-450-8000 | Skype: marc_vendetti

“When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy.”

~Rumi 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
17

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Timothy o'Shea [tim@cleanfish.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:07 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:06 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Timothy o'Shea 

Email: tim@cleanfish.com

Comments: 

I am in a business that deals with and is directly impacted by the appropriate or 

inappropriate use of natural resources of our region. I am a Fishmonger with a national 

business known throughout our domestic seafood industry. 

There is no scientific doubt that the coal fired plants of the past and present are directly 

responsible for damage to the health of our seafood industry. The market for fish is rising 

due to the health benefits of seafood. Yet, the realization of this simple fact is at odds 

with the equal facts that describe the levels of damage and the levels of heavy metals being 

deposited in our coastal ocean regions and waterways through the diffused settling of mercury 

and other toxic substances from coal fired plants. This is the time to take the funds from 

this now clearly destructive set of byproducts of coal power and drive to research and action 

in the realms of other energy sources that are present, available and more benign. We must 

choose to spend our funds on a healthier future, not continue in problems we now know we have 

created in our past. Move to the future and stop spending funds on the past rather than 

creating greener, cleaner jobs that have a future we can believe in and trust. My business 

and countless other small businesses depend on this kind of turning away from toxic power and 

toward power that empowers us all. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
18

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Irvin Dawid [irvindawid@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:47 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:47 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Irvin Dawid 

Email: irvindawid@gmail.com

Comments: I strongly support these regulations. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
19

From: Ginny Stearns [ginnystearns@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:30 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Strong coal plant regulations necessary

Coal is definitely our dirtiest fossil fuel source, polluting our air, destroying our environment and health and 

contributing mightily to CO2 emissions heating our planet to dangerous levels. 

Strong regulations on coal firing plants are necessary to reduce these pollutants and assist the transition to 

renewable energy as fast as possible. 

I also strongly suggest a carbon tax or price floor to equal the playing field between fossil fuels which pollute 

our planet for free and renewables needing stimulus and support to grow. 

The EPA has a unique position of strength in leveraging the transition to renewables in a crucially important 

nation. Use it! 

For our planet's future I thank you 

Virginia Stearns 

Ginnystearns@gmail.com
20

From: Sue V. [suelooo@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:30 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: New regulations for coal-fired power plants

I'm writing today to show my support for tough regulations on coal-fired power plants. 

The new rules the EPA is proposing are long overdue. We can't afford to live in a world where 

we blow up mountains, disturbing whole ecosystems and human communities, so we can get to a 

resource that further pollutes our world when we burn it. It doesn't make sense. There are 

better ways to create energy, and instead of spending loads of money on lobbyists to try to 

preserve its antiquated way of doing business, the coal industry should be spending money on 

R & D to transform itself into a clean-energy provider. 

Thank you for your time. 

-Sue Voelkel 

San Francisco, CA 
21

From: Gerilyn Denny [gdenny@sonic.net]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:27 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Expressing my opinion on Coal-fired plants

Hello there, I might be able to stop by on Tuesday at the hearing but in case I can't would 

like to express my opinion that coal-fired electricity is the dirtiest source of energy 

besides tar sands and needs to be phased out to save our planet from overheating as well as 

to save people from pollution-caused illnesses. 

Global warming from over-production of carbon based fuels has already caused great damage to 

our planets ecosystem and we owe it to future generations to support clean energy solutions 

not coal. Thanks! Sincerely, Gerilyn Denny 

Sent from my iPhone 
22

From: Robert Morgan [rpmtha@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:26 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Cc: Nancy Morgan

Subject: We strongly support vigorous EPA actions to limit carbon pollution

To whom it may concern, 

 It is absolutely essential that EPA use every means within its authority to limit carbon pollution from both 

old and new power plants. We have delayed long enough. The scientific evidence and the observed negative 

impacts of human induced climate change leave us very little time to procrastinate. We need to phase out fossil 

fuel use and accelerate the transition to renewable energies, like wind and solar. The U.S. has an obligation to 

be at the forefront of this effort, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, humanity and our planet. 

Yours sincerely, 

Robert P. Morgan*, PhD 

Nancy H. Morgan 

1025 N. George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22205 

Professor Emeritus of Technology and Human Affairs 

Washington University in St. Louis 
23

From: Gayl Dieckman [gayl.dieckman@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:46 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Coal

is bad for our health, communities, environment. Please do everything in your power to reduce coal 

admissions. I have asthma, difficult enough to breathe sometimes, please don't allow industry to keep polluting 

our environment. Gayl Dieckman 
24

From: Jordyn Bonds [jbonds@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:33 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: My thoughts on reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants

Dear EPA – 

Clearly, humanity has gotten itself into quite a pickle burning all these fossil fuels. We're in such a pickle that 

we can't even seem to have an honest conversation about our predicament, it's so terrifying. But since you are 

charged with protecting the environment, and since I assume you take that charge very seriously, I'm going to 

just call a pickle a pickle, here. 

I urge you to issue the strictest possible standards on plants generating electricity from fossil fuels. I'm talking 

zero carbon emissions. Sure, go ahead and burn the stuff; but you better not emit a single CO2 molecule in the 

process. I know that's tantamount to an outright ban, but the Clean Air Act gives you the power to do it, and 

humanity's current trajectory toward climate catastrophe gives you ample justification. 

Regarding your public listening sessions, you say on your website, "Before proposing guidelines, EPA must 

consider how power plants with a variety of different configurations would be able to reduce carbon pollution in 

a cost-effective way." While it may be impolitic at the moment, I urge you to disregard how cost-effective any 

such reductions would be. Whatever the near-term cost, it will be far less than the toll climate change will 

ultimately take on Earth's biosphere. 

Frankly, my preference would have been for the federal government to tax carbon, thereby generating revenue 

that might offset the economic pain of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Sadly, that seems – to put it mildly –

unlikely to happen in time to make much of a difference. So it's up to you. Set an example for the world. Get 

our economy set in the right direction. Do what's right. 

To quote the Big Lebowski: Her life is in your hands, dude. 

Yours truly, 

Jordyn Bonds 

114 Dustin Street 

Brighton, MA 02135 

(617) 549-3395 
25

From: Royce and Sandy Truex [truex@pacbell.net]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:27 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Regulation of coal-fired plants

Dear EPA regulators, 

 

Everyone knows that coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the 

US. Most of us know that we urgently need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as 

possible. EPA rules can help make that transition happen. 

 

Please resist the coal industry and its unwilllingness to consider anything but profits. 

 

Thank you. 

 

Royce Truex 
26

From: Lanny Shuman [lannyshuman@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:26 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Cc: 350@350.org

Subject: EPA rules on coal

It is time to stop coal. We need to promulgate the strongest possible rules to slow and eliminate coal mining 

and use in our Nation's energy production. We cannot continue down the pollution path. I urge you to move 

forward in establish tight and rules on coal use and transportation. Please make sure that you prove that the 'P' 

in EPA stands for Protection (of my children and grand children) and not Pollution of or environment. Thank 

you. 

George L (Lanny) Shuman 

Seattle 
27

From: Tarek Hijaz [satur09@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:04 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Coal-fired power plants

To Whom It May Concern, 

 As a voter and citizen of the State of Illinois, the United States of America, and our precious and irreplaceable 

planet and on behalf of myself, my friends and family, the other human and non-human inhabitants of this 

world, and all future generations of our children, I am writing to you to express my grave concern at the terrible 

consequences of our continued use of fossil fuels, including coal, to generate electricity at our power plants. 

 Due to work constraints, I am unable to make my statements at the public hearing in Chicago on November 8, 

2013, so I will summarize them in the form of an e-mail. 

 I am one of countless individuals who has accepted the irrefutable science that has clearly demonstrated that 

the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary cause of climate change in our time. The 

terrible consequences thereof, including dangerous sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of 

devastating storms, ocean acidification, and mass extinction have already begun and will no doubt become 

much worse. The best we can hope for is to take action to sharply curb our carbon output in hopes of blunting 

the intensity and duration of the aforementioned consequences. 

 There are no longer any excuses for inaction. The powerful lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, including 

those for the coal industry, are without conscience and seem to only be driven by profit. I, and many others, 

have grown tired of the lies and deliberate misinformation being spread on their behalf. 

 One critical step we can take is to no longer build any new coal-fired power plants and to phase out those in 

operation. So-called clean coal is a myth, one of many invented by the coal industry. Furthermore, there is solid 

data implicating particulate matter from coa-fired plants as causing serious and costly health issues, including 

exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases. Investments in clean energy and technological innovations, 

in particular solar and wind energy, have made their costs drop precipitously just in the past 5 years. These are 

the types of power generating facilities we should be building, and if the electricity from such power plants 

costs a bit more in the short term, so be it. It's worth it! As for the argument that ending our reliance on coal 

will result in a loss of jobs, it's hardly a reason not to invest in our future. There is so much more at stake than 

the jobs of coal miners. Furthermore, continued investments in clean energy will result in countless new jobs, 

perhaps even ones for which coal miners could be retrained. 

 I urge you to take serious action on behalf of all the inhabitants of our planet. End our reliance on coal and 

other fossil fuels, and give us all a chance at a better future than the one that awaits us if we continue on our 

current course. 

Sincerely yours, 

Tarek A. Hijaz, MD 

-- 

Tarek A. Hijaz, MD 

Assistant Professor of Radiology 

Division of Neuroradiology 

Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University 

Chicago, Illinois 

Phone: 312-695-1292 

Fax: 312-695-4108 

************************************* 
28

From: Seth Larson [data.kindnet@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 4:29 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Chicago EPA meeting

Dear EPA folks, 

I was very glad to hear about your hearing for coal powered electricity in Chicago, collecting citizen input is 

very important and I laud your efforts in this direction. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend. However, I still 

wish to share my thoughts on this subject. 

I completely, and without reservation condemn any expansion to coal-generated power in the state of Illinois 

and the nation in general. Some facts from GreenAmerica.org: 

Climate Change

• Coal is the absolute dirtiest of all energy sources and the greatest contributor to global warming: 

coal-fired power plants are responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990, and have the 

highest ratio of CO2 output per unit of electricity out of all the fossil fuels [US DOE]. The top three 

countries in the world building new coal plants are also among the top five for CO2 emissions per 

capita – the US (#1), China (#2), and India (#5) [UCSUSA]. 

• Unless we move quickly to reduce and clean up our use of coal as an energy source, we will pass 

the tipping point beyond which the effects of global warming become irreversible. 

• Get some Fast Facts about coal and climate change. 

Mountaintop Removal / Strip Mining

• Strip mining, also known as mountaintop removal (MTR), flattens mountains and devastates 

ecosystems. In this process, forests are clear-cut to expose the tops of mountains, which are then 

blown off with explosives. Coal is extracted using large machinery and the unused soil and rock 

are dumped into adjacent valleys, filling them up and creating a flat landscape. 

• The coal companies are supposed to reclaim the land, but this rarely occurs. Even if it does, the 

mountain ecosystem can never be fully restored. 

• MTR also produces massive amounts of toxic waste that must be stored in slurries, which may 

endanger nearby towns (see boxes under Toxic Waste). 

Toxic Waste 

• Both coal mining and burning generate enormous amounts of liquid waste in the form of slurry, 

containing carcinogenic compounds and toxic heavy metals. The slurry is stored in large lagoons 

that sometimes leak or break, resulting in slurry floods and water contamination. 

• Slurry spills happen all the time, but some of them are especially disastrous. In both 2000 and 

2008, coal-slurry ponds in Kentucky and Tennessee burst, spilling more toxic waste into the 

surrounding communities than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. In summer 2010, the EPA proposed 

regulating coal slurry (also known as coal ash) as hazardous waste for the first time. (Green 

America is currently running a campaign to supply public comment on this issue to the EPA.) 

• Fossil fuel combustion yields over 100 million tons of waste each year. [CATF]

Acid Rain

• Acid rain is a broad term for any rain, snow, fog, gas, or particles that contain higher than normal amounts of nitric acid and sulfuric acid. 

• The acids are formed when sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) enter the atmosphere and react with water, oxygen, or other chemicals. 

• In the U.S., 59% all SO2 and 18% of all NOx emissions come from coal-fired power plants. [EPA] 

• Acid rain causes: 

o Increased acidification of waterways, killing fish and other aquatic life 

o Tree and soil damage 
29

o Accelerated decay of buildings and statues 

Air Pollution 

• Pollution from coal-burning power plants causes an estimated 30,000 deaths a year in the United 

States – that’s more than drunken driving, AIDS, or homicides.[CATF] 

• Fine particles and oxygen-blocking gases produced when coal is burned are linked to asthma, heart 

disease, emphysema, and lung cancer. 

• NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight to produce smog, which causes 

many kinds of health problems when inhaled. 

Toxic Emissions 

• “Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the 

U.S.” [EPA] 

• Emissions from coal-fired power plants have been found to contain 67 air toxins that are either 

known or suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins that can cause a number of developmental and 

respiratory problems. The most dangerous of these toxins is mercury. 

• Mercury is released when coal is burned and falls to the earth, ultimately making its way into the 

water, contaminating fish. Humans become contaminated from eating the fish. 47 states and 

territories issued fish consumption advisories for mercury in 2004. Mercury is most dangerous as a 

developmental toxin, causing brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, and other problems in 

fetuses and breastfeeding babies of contaminated mothers. 

Recently I read about the destruction of Appalachia and its surrounding communities, 

some of America's oldest, in the heart-wrenching book by Joe Sacco and Chris Hedges, 

Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. The moral implications of using coal are far too 

great to ignore. In addition, the people of the world must immediately understand that 

our use of carbon fuels must cease and we will need to adopt less energy rigorous lives 

immediately. The government needs to take the lead in demonstrating this undeniable 

reality as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time.

Seth A. Larson

2337 n. SAcramento Ave #2

Chicago, IL 60647
30

From: ELIZABETH SLOSS [elizabethinseattle@me.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 4:13 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: EPA Public Listening Session on coal-fired plants

RE: EPA Public Listening Session on coal-fired plants, to be held in Seattle on Thursday, November 7th 3-6pm 

I am writing this letter in lieu of attending the upcoming public session. As the sole caregiver to my chronically ill husband I cannot leave him to be there. 

We know that coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US. I believe we need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that transition happen -- but not if we let the coal industry stand in the way. 

Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. From Appalachia, where the tops of mountains are blown off to mine coal, to communities living with respiratory diseases and cancers in the shadow of power plants, the coal industry has run ragged over our country. Coal CEOs continue to reap profits while ripping off workers and the planet -- and it's past time to move our country and our planet beyond fossil fuels. 

Thank you for listening to the citizens of Seattle! 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth Sloss (from zip code 98112) 
31

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Marjorie Kundiger [marjoriekundiger@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:41 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 15:41 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Marjorie Kundiger 

Email: marjoriekundiger@gmail.com

Comments: Please hold all plants to the highest standards. No new cold plants and when doing 

evaluation do a complete picture from local to gloubal warming inpact Web Area: Carbon 

Pollution Standards 
32

From: Barbara Lyons [barbaralyons1@mac.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:18 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Coal regulations

Profits MUST not take precedence over the health of our children and our planet. Coal's days 

are numbered. Please see that the number is small. Thanks you Barbara Lyons Evanston Il 
33

From: GRACE HALL [gracewhall@msn.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:03 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Concerning coal regulations

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I understand the EPA is having hearings this Monday on proposed coal plant regulations. I will be unable to 

attend the hearing or rally, but want you to know that I strongly support tighter regulations on the coal 

industry. Coal is currently the source of a great deal of pollution that hurts our health and our atmosphere. 

Very tight regulations to minimize emissions will make our country healthier and decrease the level to which 

energy production is contributing to climate change. Please add my name to those who strongly support your 

proposed rule on new regulations for the coal industry. 

Thank you. 

Grace Hall 

1188 Broadway #307 

Somerville, MA 02144 

215-858-5448 

gracewhall@msn.com
34

From: gm [atiba1997@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:23 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: New rules on coal-fired power plants

Just a reminder, in case you are considering relaxing emission control rules on these plants. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html

Gayle Morrow 

BTW, when you look the coal lobbyist in the eye pretend to see him through your grandchildren's eyes in 2050. 
35

From: Willene Jaqua McRae [willene.jaqua@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:16 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Seattle Public Listening Session on November 7th

Dear EPA, 

I am writing because I have just learned of the November 7, 2013 Public Listening Session on CoalFired Plants scheduled in Seattle at the Henry Jackson Federal Building. I live in Seattle, but will 

be out of town that day and evening. I am so disappointed! Please include this email as proxy for 

my presence there. I am so grateful for the new rules that the EPA is devising as truly the most 

important response that I am aware of on the part of our government in face of the global warming 

crisis. I am completely in favor of doing everything we can to shift off fossil fuels and support new 

clean energies before it is too late. I do not want to be using any electricity that is generated from 

coal-burning, but since that is not presently an option for me, I so appreciate more stringent rules 

on the coal emissions. 

Thank you for doing what is clearly the most important work in our nation today. 

I am sorry that I will not be at the Henry Jackson federal building on November 7 to show you my 

support and gratitude. 

I bet there will be a huge turnout though. 

Do let me know if I can send letters of support anywhere else that would be helpful to EPA. 

Thank you. 

Willene Jaqua McRae 

202 NW 60th Street 

Seattle, WA 98107 
36

From: Josie Edwards L.Ac. [josie36@mac.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:16 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Activity warms. Human activity warms. Cow farts warm. Greed heats the human heart. Carbon 

pollution from many sources overheats our atmosphere. Heat mixes with cold and causes 

convection currents. Extreme human activity and desires lead to war. War leads to fire. Fire 

is on the far end of the heat spectrum. Selfishness is cold. Extremes of heat and cold lead 

to extreme weather. Humans should sit still and meditate more, desire less and be happy. 

Earth is a self-regulating system of biogeochemistry. The price of carbon pollution is 

sicker, shorter lived, less fertile human beings. Also more extreme storms, less land mass as 

polar caps thaw and oceans rise. Mother Earth can shake and rattle. We have been warned. Now 

let's act in a way that is in accordance with our compassionate nature. 
37

From: JONATHAN LEIBOVIC [leibovic@gse.upenn.edu]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:15 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Philadelphia Coal Hearing

Hello, 

 

I'm glad to hear that EPA will be hosting a listening session on the new coal-fired power plant rules on Friday, 

November 8. I also understand that the time of the session has changed due to the recent government shutdown. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the time chosen will not be accessible for many Philadelphia-area 

residents who would like to have their voices heard. 

 

As you are no doubt aware, coal-fired power plants are disproportionately located in working-class 

communities of color. The people who have the greatest stake in these new regulations are also the people who 

are least likely to be able to attend a session from 10 am - 4 pm on a Friday, especially if they are working more 

than one job. What measures are you taking to ensure that members of the affected communities will also be 

able to provide input? I have no doubt that lobbyists and representatives from the fossil fuel industry will be 

able to take time out of their busy schedules to submit their comments, but what about everyone else? 

 

I hope to be able to attend the hearing. I am a full-time student and will be in class on Friday until 1:30 pm. 

 

Cheers, 

Jonathan Leibovic 
38

From: Buffy [bshake@wtechlink.us]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:37 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Climate Change

I am deeply concerned about climate change and what we can do about it. 

Shipping our resources off shore does not seem like a good idea. I am most worried about the 

proposed coal ports as that coal will be burned in Asia and will certainly have an effect on 

CO2 levels as well as more acidification of the Pacific ocean. 

We need to stop using fossil fuels and start developing and promoting more clean 

alternatives. 

Thanks for your time, 

Buffy Hake 

49591 River Rd 

Pendleton, OR. 97801 
39

From: Elin Hert [elinanddoug@hotmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:21 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input; Group A-AND-R-DOCKET

Subject: Coal Fired Power Plant Rules

Dear EPA, 

I am writing to tell you how happy I am with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. I can't tell 

you how important these rules are. Please do not back down in any way! 

I look forward to having these rules approved and in place. 

Sincerely, 

Elin Hert 

216 S. 10th Avenue 

Bozeman, Montana 59715 

406-580-3577 
40

From: grantk928@gmail.com

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:06 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Please prevent further coal pollution

We have alternatives to coal in renewable energy, so it's time we use them. Please prevent 

further coal pollution. This is not a technology problem, it's a policy problem. 

Thank you, 

Grant Klein 
41

From: Andrew Lambe [andrew.lambe@gmail.com] on behalf of Andrew Lambe 

[lambe@aerodyne.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:40 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: I support regulation of coal-fired power plants

Hello, 

I am an atmospheric scientist and I work in the greater Boston area. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the 

EPA’s public listening session in Boston this Monday (11/4), but I STRONGLY support new EPA 

rules/legislation to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. I would be happy to answer any followup 

questions or address specific issues related to your public session. Thanks! 

Sincerely, 

Andrew Lambe 

work: 978-663-9500 x 209 

cell: 508-212-7138 

Begin forwarded message: 

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

-- 

Andrew T. Lambe, PhD 

Senior Scientist 

Aerodyne Research, Inc. 

www.aerodyne.com
42

From: Stacy Prince [skpabc@optonline.net]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:57 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: coal-fired power plants

Dear EPA, 

I am thrilled with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. I can't word this strongly enough! Please do the right thing and do not back down in any way. I look forward to your announcement that the new rules are in place.

Thank you,

Stacy Prince

Westport, CT 
43

From: William Deutschlander [billastt@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:56 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: A Healthy Environment

Carbon Pollution is destroying the Environment we were provided by our creator. 

Science experts by a large majority, have stated that Carbon Pollution must be reduced substantially. 

We MUST establish rules that continue to clean up our atmosphere and water. 

Breathable Air and Potable Water are vital for all living creatures. 

Provide Rules that will stop us from destroying ourselves. 

William Deutschlander 

7 Solar Drive 

New Providence, PA 17560 
44

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of stulips [stulips@hotmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:36 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 11:36 

Submitted values are: 

Name: stulips 

Email: stulips@hotmail.com

Comments: please limit carbon pollution, no more cars, coal, oil, logging or burning of 

anything, only allow solar & wind power, all other kinds highly pollutive! 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
45

From: Jeanette Fariborz [jeanettefariborz@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:11 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Monday's public session on coal-fired power plants

I am unable to attend Monday's public session but as the grand-daughter of a coal miner who died from black 

lung after years of suffering I urge you to take strong action in moving us to cleaner sources of energy. The 

coal industry is currently using methods that have increased the incidence and lowered the age of onset of black 

lung. 

Please stand with the public instead of being swayed by the coal industry. 

Sincerely, 

Jeanette Fariborz 

118 Woodcliff Road 

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 
46

From: Jeffrey Panciera [jeffiejimmie@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:01 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: the speed of pollution being faster than evolution

My question is this: Given that we have spread polluting substances in our environment, most of them very 

toxic; Given that these toxic substances are in our bodies, in our organs, in placenta blood; Given that we are on 

the cusp of over-running the ability of our bees to survive in this environment, especially given the latest 

chemicals, the neonicotinoids; Does any scientist have an idea of the time-line in which we will arrive at a 

tipping point for our own species? At what point will the accumulated effect of these thousands of toxic 

chemicals will give a significant number of us lung, liver and kidney disease we can no longer ignore? Does the 

EPA see its job of protecting the environment as central to keeping us away from that tipping point, even 

pushing it away? 
47

From: Jim and Sharon Price [jasprice@isomedia.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:01 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: coal plants

We totally object to the use of fossil fuels because they are not sustainable for the planet. As we transition away from 

them as we must, we need to capture and control the emissions the coal plants subject the earth and living things to. 

Please toughen, don’t bow down to the industry, in making emission rules. 

Sharon and James Price 

23406 Vashon Hwy SW 

Vashon Is, WA 98070 
48

From: Jennifer Hiebert [jenn.hiebert@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:49 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I am writing to beg the EPA to hold firm with its proposed standards in the face of opposition from the coal 

industry and its lobbyists. Those of us who realize the impact of carbon pollution on our children and 

grandchildren--and the world's poorest, as well as ecosystems everywhere--are increasingly dismayed by this 

country's inability to face the need for mitigation. This is a case in which the long-term damage is so destructive 

that it trumps whatever short-term economic disadvantage the coal industry and climate deniers wish to claim. 

Please keep the regulations in place. Do whatever you can to address carbon pollution! 

Grateful for the EPA, 

Jennifer Hiebert 

---

Lauren Good & Jennifer Hiebert / Adam Good

4201 Sheridan Street | University Park, MD 20 782

301.864.9 369 | jenn.hiebert@gmail.com
49

From: Tj Mathews [dumela7@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:45 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: I strongly support your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants

Dear EPA, 

I am thrilled with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. I can't word this 

strongly enough! Please do the right thing and do not back down in any way. I look forward 

to your announcement that the new rules are in place. 

thanks, 

TJ Mathews 

Takoma Park, MD 
50

From: Teresa McQueen [waterhythms@mac.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:37 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Coal Feedback

As a concerned citizen, I want to contribute my feedback here since I cannot attend the 

public session on November 7 in Seattle. I feel strongly that coal use must be stopped. 

Energy sources have always needed to be sustainable and less destructive and toxic to the 

environment and we can no longer ignore this because the corporate rich lobby against this 

needed change with their political dollars. I hope you, the EPA, will represent the good for 

us all by making the decisions necessary to escalate the demise of dirty energy and the rapid 

expansion of cleaner energy. It is long overdue and action is needed now, not tomorrow. 

Thank you. 

Teresa McQueen 
51

From: Brian Murray [brianmpa@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:36 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: It's time we took our planet and its climate seriously

To whom it may concern at the EPA: 

I live in Boston. I am an American citizen, and a citizen of the world as we all are. Global warming and the 

climate change created by global warming is created by us, humans, with our carbon dioxide emissions and 

other greenhouse gases. The burning of coal for electrical generation is the greatest source of Carbon dioxide 

emissions into our atmosphere. 

The latest IPCC report released in late September demonstrates our planet is destined to warm up by 4 - 6 

degrees Celcius this Century if we do not reduce our carbon emissions now. Not next year, not by 2020, now! 

Coal-fired electrical generation plants should not be built, period, and the current plants need to be taken out of 

service as quickly as possible. 

Fight for your agency's right to control air pollution. Starting with reducing the burning of coal is the first place 

to start. 

Sincerely, 

Brian W. Murray, Ph.D. 

1575 Tremont St. 

Boston, MA 02120 
52

From: Patti Doyle [takethecannoli.psd@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:28 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Clean energy now!

Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. We must look to wind, water and solar power. It is our only hope.

Patti Doyle

Seattle, WA.
53

From: Chata461@cs.com

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:28 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

To Whom It May Concern: 

I am sending excerpts from three articles which address the health related effects of carbon pollution 

on air quality. 

Thank you. 

Rosemarie Woods 

4115 Holmes 

Kansas City, MO 64110 

"On March 1st of this year, a new research study connecting autism and air pollution was published in 

Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal published by the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences. The largest of its kind, this study shows a correlation between 

autism and prenatal exposure to air pollution. With autism in the United States rising at dramatic 

rates over the past two decades, this study shows that air pollution may be an important contributing 

factor to the development of autism." 

(http://www.care2.com/greenliving/autism-air-pollution-and-my-son.html

Autism, Air Pollution, And My Son) 

"Researchers are documenting how climate change is driving an increase in seasonal allergies. 

We’re not talking about some future problem, years down the line, such as sea level rise swamping 

the downtowns of major US cities. We are talking about today. Right now... allergies can trigger 

asthma attacks. And as many as one in ten children have asthma...Higher temperatures lengthen the 

spring and fall allergy seasons. 

More pollen is being produced per plant, a biochemical reaction to the increased carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere."

(http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-climate-change-worsens-your-allergies.html

How Climate Change Worsens Your Allergies) 

"...doctors and other experts believe climate change will increase the number and severity of 

asthma cases. Maybe your kids love getting outside to ski or fish. What’s the climate connection? 

Climate change is affecting snowfall and causing earlier, more dramatic spring ice melts—meaning 

significant shifts in snowfall during the winter as well as changing river conditions in the spring and 

summer (because many rivers are fed by melting snow and ice throughout the spring and 

summer)...As climate change worsens, droughts and extreme weather like we’ve seen recently 

will put even greater strain on our agriculture system– impacting the price, quality, and 

quantity of food...the facts are clear: climate change is happening and it’s caused by heattrapping pollution (largely from burning fossil fuels and destroying forests)."

(http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-and-your-kids.html

Climate Change and Your Kids) 
54

From: ccarpent63@gmail.com

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:01 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Carbon Pollution Standard Should be More Stringent 

Sent from Windows Mail 

Please ensure that carbon standards for existing power plants are improved to lower carbon pollution from 

power plants. 

 

Enough of devastating wildfires, droughts, floods and tornadoes that are ruining my state of Colorado and our 

country! Greenhouse gases need to be reduced by power plants. 

 

Carol Carpenter 

Denver, Colorado 
55

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of George Denniston MD [geocdenn@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:32 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 07:32 

Submitted values are: 

Name: George Denniston MD 

Email: geocdenn@gmail.com

Comments: I see global warming as threatening the very existence of the race. 

Therefore anyone who is against measures to reduce it is by definition, insane. Nothing less. 

So I do hope you can get c lear on reducing carbon output. thank you. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
56

From: Stephanie Clark [sclarkenterprises@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:55 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Best ideas for reducing carbon pollution

Good morning, 

 

I am unable to attend the Nov 8th EPA public sessions on carbon pollution. Existing power plants are 

responsible for 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the US and need strong rules in place to reduce the 

pollution down to 5 or zero percent. The new proposal ensures that the nation will rely on a diverse mix of 

energy sources such as natural gas, clean coal, nuclear power. 

 

It is recommended that we do not depend on natural gas nor clean coal because these require destroying the 

environment to get the sources i.e. mining that destroys animals homes and fracking that destroys our water 

supply. 

 

 

It is recommended that we move toward renewable source of energy as the major way of dealing with carbon 

pollution. More solar is needed. Please revise your proposal to include more percentage of renewable source 

of energy. 

 

thank you 

 

Stephanie clark 

135 Rice Corner Road 

Brookfield, MA 01506 
57

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Elizabeth [elizabeth-grace@juno.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:47 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 00:47 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Elizabeth 

Email: elizabeth-grace@juno.com

Comments: it is of primary importance that the carbon content in our agmosphere be reduced, 

or at least not increased. The strictest of regulations on carbon emissions is a first step. 

Moving from carbon based (or 

nuclear) fuel to sustainable wind and solar is another. Corporations should not be allowed 

to continue polluting through carbon credits. massive carbon emission should be a crime, 

with a high fine for the first conviction, and a discontinuation of business for a second. 

Fines could go to subsidize rapid development of sustainable energy, and should be high 

enough to be punitive, and not simply a purchasing of the right to pollute. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
58

From: Edward Greisch [edgreisch@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:49 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: carbon pollution rule for existing power plants

If we don't act immediately and take draconian action, we humans could be extinct by 2060. This is not a joke. 

Please read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/full

"Drought Under Global Warming: a Review" by Aiguo Dai 

atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/adai/

This was made with data on the extent of deserts from 1870 to present. The usual General Circulation [computer] Models [GCMs] were not used. Since the sensitivity was not used, the sensitivity is irrelevant. Civilization still collapses near or shortly after mid-century this century. 

See the maps of drought in the 2060s on page 15. 

"Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series" by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought/desertification caused by GW [Global Warming]. 

Reference: "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. When agriculture collapses, civilization collapses. Fagan and Diamond told the stories of something like 2 dozen previous very small civilizations. Most of the collapses were caused by fraction of a degree climate changes. In some cases, all of that group died. On the average, 1 out of 10,000 survived. We humans could go EXTINCT in the 2050s. The 1 out of 10,000 survived because he wandered in the direction of food. If the collapse is global, there is no right direction. 

We must take extreme action now. Cut CO2 production 40% by the end of 2015. [How to do this: Replace all coal fired power plants with factory built nuclear. Renewables do not work except for niche markets.] Continuing to make CO2 is the greatest imaginable GENOCIDE. We have to act NOW. Acting in 2049 will not work. Nature just doesn't work that way. All fossil fuel fired power plants must be shut down and replaced with nuclear. With factory built nuclear power plants, we can still get it done by the end of 2016. 
59

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jeff Reinert [jreinert2003@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:16 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 22:16 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Jeff Reinert 

Email: jreinert2003@yahoo.com

Comments: We do need some common sense. We need to work for a sustainable planet, and not for 

the self-interests of U.S. Oil. First we must admit that our actions have had a profound 

negative effect on carbon pollution over the past 100 years. We need to try to reverse our 

actions, and take a lead in making this a better place to live...for centuries, not years. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
60

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Scharmel Roussel [scharmel2008@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 9:57 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 21:57 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Scharmel Roussel 

Email: scharmel2008@gmail.com

Comments: I am a middle-age, middle-class Christian grandmother in Arkansas, and I am 

pleading with you to take bold, brave, courageous action now to set limits on the amount of 

carbon pollution spewed into the air by power plants. 

The future of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are in your hands. 

History is being made by our collective actions. I am counting on you and praying for your 

courage. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
61

From: Ron Kuts [ronkuts@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:26 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

The carbon emissions are ruining the seasons which in turn are wrecking the food chain, the changes need to be made to 

reduce this awful effect on the planet. 

 A concerned person 
62

From: Edna Lord [ewlord@msn.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:22 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Reduce Carbon Pollution 

Since there isn't a listening session for New Jersey, I'm forwarding some comments which I 

wholeheartedly support. 

Existing power plants are respo

nsible for 40% of the carbon 

pollution in the United Statespollution that causes climate 

change. 

We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon.

Edna Lord 

Hillsdale, NJ 

 
63

From: Kalexandra@comcast.net

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 7:46 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon Pollution

• Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States—pollution that causes climate change.

• We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

• Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

• More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

• Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

• More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

• We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon.

Sincerely, Kathryn Alexandra

 4311 ginnett Rd

 Anacortes, WA 98221
64

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Lori Lawrence [lawrencelorid@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 7:29 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 19:29 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Lori Lawrence 

Email: lawrencelorid@gmail.com

Comments: There are multiple ways to reduce carbon pollution, you are familiar with them all. 

We know that those companies who pollute are not going to change what they do unless there 

are regulations imposed upon them. 

That is your job. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
65

From: David Kosterlitz [david.s.kosterlitz@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:56 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Please reduce carbon pollution from power plants

Thank you. 

-- 

David S. Kosterlitz 

6209 Hollins Dr 

Bethesda, MD 20817 

 

(301) 564-5734 
66

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ben Henneke [benhenneke@cleanairaction.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:24 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 18:24 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Ben Henneke 

Email: benhenneke@cleanairaction.com

Comments: 

The new standards are important for health reasons and also for climate change. Because 

political opposition is an ongoing problem, and gets refought and re-litigated at every level 

of implementation, I recommend that you allow offsets to be used to attain the standard for a 

5-10 year 'implementation' phase. This allows new technologies to be tried without the 

'pass-fail' mentality that slows technology diffusion. 

Properly created offsets will assure the attainment of the results the standards are intended 

to achieve, and will reduce the political and legal obstacles to implementation. 

Good luck! 

Ben 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
67

From: Natasha Gubert [an8els@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:14 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: pollution

dear EPA 

your mandate is to protect the public from irresponsible corporate practices that poison the 

environment for people and all living things. Please resist the powerful pressure to coddle 

business and act quickly to curtail more degradation of the environment; already we are past 

the tipping point of catastrophic global warming. 

Also catastrophic is the pollution from nuclear waste everywhere there is a nuclear facility, 

whether operated by a utility to boil water or by the military ..... These stats have been 

hidden from the public since the beginning of nuclear testing, and no one steps up to explain 

the obvious...the one in two cancer rate in this country. And now there is the disaster at 

Fukushima. Please monitor and report the pollution coming on the currents across the Pacific 

that will arrive on our west coast early in 2014. 

I sincerely hope you and your colleagues of like mind hold together against the pressure of 

the revolving door. 

Please please please do your job and blow the whistle when you see wrongdoing. The public 

will thank you for your courage. 

Sincerely 

Natasha Gubert 
68

From: Steck, Theodore L. [BSD] - BMB [tsteck@bsd.uchicago.edu]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:26 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Dear EPA, 

I would like to comment regarding the current public listening sessions on carbon pollution standards for 

existing power plants. I am an emeritus professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at 

The University of Chicago. I also founded, and chaired for 15 years, the Environmental Studies Program at 

this institution. I have followed and taught environmental matters closely for four decades. 

I want to lend my voice to the overwhelming consensus among informed individuals and experts concerning 

the mitigation of ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate change. This planet and its 

inhabitants are already experiencing significant impacts from global warming. Our present course is very likely 

to cause ever-increasing temperature rise and environmental disruption lasting for centuries. Serious longterm impacts are now unavoidable (barring drastic, novel and risky geo-engineering interventions) because of 

the carbon dioxide already emitted by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore only sensible that coal burning be 

reduced as far and as fast as possible. Coal is the most inefficient major source of energy. Fortunately, it can 

now be economically replaced by cleaner combustible fuels (natural gas, etc.) as well as alternative forms of 

energy (e.g., wind and solar). 

Thus, the President's proposed carbon pollution standards are not only wise and necessary, but feasible and 

attractive. Existing power plants, being the worst emitters of carbon dioxide and other pollutants as well as the 

least efficient provider of electricity, are a sensible target for immediate action. If carbon emission reduction is 

impracticable or uneconomical for existing power plants, we will be better off without them. The problems 

presented by the phasing out of the coal industry and coal-fired power plants are challenging but quite 

manageable. They should certainly not compromise our efforts to eliminate coal as a energy source as quickly 

as possible. (Carbon sequestration is presently not a solution to coal emissions. We should continue to 

develop this presently-inadequate technology, especially because it can be applied other fossil fuels if 

successful.) 

The USA continues to be the major emitter of greenhouse gas pollution. If the rest of the world is to also 

mitigate its CO2 emissions, this country must lead by example as well as by developing alternative 

technologies already in hand. 

Thank you. 

Theodore L. Steck 

****************************************************** 

Theodore L. Steck, M.D. 

 Professor Emeritus 

The University of Chicago 

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 

 http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/ 

929 East 57th Street, W142 

Chicago, IL 60637 

Phone: (773) 702-1329 

 Fax: (773) 702-0439 

 e-mail: tsteck@bsd.uchicago.edu 

****************************************************** 
69

 
70

From: Steve Rosenblum(pol1) [pol1@rosenblums.us]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:21 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon pollution standards

I am planning to attend the listening session in SF on Nov 5th but would like to make sure that my concerns are heard. 

Global climate change is a fact of life and it is being caused by man-made carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. 

We have very little time to reduce our emissions before the changes are devastating and irreversible. A minimal step to 

take is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Transferring the environmental and health costs of 

coal pollution to the producer and eventual consumer will help level the economic playing field with renewable sources of 

energy.The next step is to eliminate all intentional and covert subsidies to fossil fuel consumption such as the oil depletion 

allowance and subsidies to the coal mining industry. Finally, we should use this recovered money to encourage the 

growth of the renewable energy sector such as wind and solar power to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible with the 

hope that these technologies will become less expensive than fossil fuels and thus allow the market to put fossil fuel 

industries out of business in a short time frame so we can avoid global calamity.

Stephen Rosenblum

212 Santa Rita Ave

Palo Alto, CA 94301
71

From: Margaret [Mountainmoving101@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:15 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Clean up

This note is to express my sincere request that the EPA do more to clean the Quality of air 

as it is released from plants across the US. As a human being who deserves clean Air and a 

solid bill of health, I view the actions ( or inaction) of the EPA as inexcusable. 

Please take a moment to realize the impact upon everyone, including your family & choose To 

act responsibly to cause good will toward all living beings. Perhaps a look into Universal 

laws where it is impossible to escape the repercussions of decisions may Be a motivating 

factor. 

Please take action to prevent further killing of our planet earth. 

Thank you 

Dr. Margaret Newton 

Sent from my iPad 
72

From: David Miller [bransonengineer@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 3:36 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon Emission Reduction from existing Power Plants

I have discovered that the Missouri Chamber of Commerce is now in the process of rallying all businesses in 

Missouri to oppose your new regulations to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants. Their 

misguided position is that the regulations will be economically devastating to Missouri. They are wrong! 

Please keep going with the new regulations. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce is also using fear factors to 

say that once EPA’s new regulations are in place for power plants, the EPA will turn their attention to ”the rest” 

of the economy and that will be a serious threat to economic competitiveness. I say “bullshit”. 

The new regulations will help protect the environment so that my grandkids and their grandkids will have a 

clean world to live. If it were up to the Chamber of Commerce, they would allow rampant pollution to continue 

because it lets their members continue to make exorbitant profits by harming or destroying the environment of 

our state, country and planet. 

So...I would request that you proceed. Get the new regulations in place and ignore the greedy stupidity of the 

short-term visions of groups like the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. 

Thank you 

David Miller 

Branson, MO 
73

From: BJ Davies [bad1jr@att.net]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:56 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Cc: Jonell Davies; Miles Thompson; Lois Harder

Subject: Limiting Existing Power Plant Carbon Pollution

Hello EPA public comment gatherers, 

Amazingly, there are no current limits on the amout of carbon pollution that can be spewed into the public air by profit driven power plants! Limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants is essential for many reasons. 

Foremost among many reasons are these two: 

 First, spewing carbon pollution is a giant health hazard, especially for those living near the plants. Allowing this limitless pollution is a public subsidy 

 encouraging this DESTRUCTIVE behavior against the public. The chemicals spewed have consistently been shown to destroy the health of countless 

 people! 

 Second, spewing carbon pollution is the major factor causing climate change, and existing carbon spewing power plants are a major contributor to this 

 disastrous climate change process. Gone unchecked, climate change will destroy human life on this planet. 

My public comment: Our very survival depends on limiting existing power plant carbon pollution!! Please make these limits strong, and please do it soon! 

BJ Davies, 669 North Armour, Wichita, Kansas 67206
74

From: Michael McMurtrey [skyking918@verizon.net]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:54 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: New Standards Needed

I fully support new, tougher standards for carbon pollution for the following reasons: 

•Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States—pollution that 

causes climate change. 

•We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health 

safeguards from carbon pollution. 

•Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States 

every year. 

•More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards. 

•Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate 

change. 

•More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung 

Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue. 

•We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon. 

J. Michael McMurtrey 

1330 Mac Arthur Dr 

Apt 2709 

Carrollton, TX 75007-4425 
75

From: Nick Berezansky [nickb@acereprographics.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:58 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon. We protect 

public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon 

pollution. Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States--pollution that causes 

climate change. 

Please, the stronger the rules, the better. 

Nick Berezansky 

123 Washington Pl. 

Ridgewood, NJ 

07450 
76

From: Judd Williams [juddwill@pacbell.net]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:33 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Everything in moderation. Carbon dioxide is great for champagne bubbles, fire extinguishers, 

and not so great beyond 350ppm in earths' atmosphere. No one wants to eat the entire cow at a 

meal and we shouldn't be force fed a toxic atmosphere to destroy our children's future. There 

is no science in question, there are easily manifest effects already and things are just 

getting started. It takes a long time for the kettle to begin to rumble and God help us when 

it is whistling. 

Carbon dioxide is invisible but its effects are not. The purpose of reduction is to create a 

healthier world. The point of denial and distraction is greed. We've seen this before. It is 

the nature of business to make money. 

Hopefully the Environmental Protection Agency is in the business for the people to protect us 

from their externalites so we can breathe easier, and our children won't inherit the wind. 

Judd Williams 

juddwill@pacbell.net
77

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of MaryRausch [maryr425@aol.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:25 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 14:24 

Submitted values are: 

Name: MaryRausch 

Email: maryr425@aol.com

Comments: Something must be done immediately to prevent climate change before it's too late. 

Our air and water are at risk, as are our lives from storms and other dangerous weather. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
78

From: Ronald Moore [tahitibeaches@msn.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:39 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Please consider the dire consequences of global warming and the catastrophic affect if will have on our 

children's lives. 

To sacrifice a portion of our GDP seems like a small price to pay. 

Our generation will be harshly judged for having placed profit above the future of our own environment. 

So, unless you have another planet to scurry off to, you better get serious about saving this one. 

Dr Ronald Moore 
79

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mr. Patrick J. Kerwin [patrickkerwin@centurylink.net]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:30 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 12:30 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Mr. Patrick J. Kerwin 

Email: patrickkerwin@centurylink.net

Comments: 

What is the name of your governmental organization? 

Who created you, what is your purpose ? Please restrict carbon pollution, and fine and jail 

the polluters, we have scientific evidence of global warming and you can do something about 

it, that is your task, that is why you exist, do your job. 

Thank you for your attention 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
80

From: LN [ejdorfman@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:11 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: EPA must do their job

Hello We need to radically change this, and decrease carbon pollution NOW, it is already LATE but if we dont 

do something NOW everything on this planet is doomed! 

Existing power 

plants are 

responsible for 

40% of the 

carbon pollution 

in the United 

States—

pollution that 

causes climate 

change. 

• We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

• Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

• More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

• Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

• More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

• We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbo
81

From: abazikos@aol.com

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:57 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: air pollution

* I have asthma- 

*both my sons have asthma ages 12, 16 respectively 

* My uncle died of emphysema 

*my mother died of COPD 

*my father died of heart disease which was exacerbated by asbestosis and pollution 

 

I take steroids so I can breathe. The steroids make me gain weight and stress my other bodily functions. 

 

New Jersey gets the short end of the stick all the time in regards to the jet stream. Make these money hungry inhumane 

practices of passing the buck stop. Air pollution leads to water pollution. When are you going to care more about the 

environment and your fellow man than big business? If you read Uptown Sinclairs' "The Jungle" you'd see what I was 

talking about. Don't talk about it. Find environmentally friendly practices that gets us off the gas industry's treadmill of 

coal gasoline and other petro chemicals. God Bless you for all of the good that you do. 

Right-click 

here to 

download 

pictures. To 

help protect 

your privacy, 

Outlo ok 

prevented 

auto matic 

download of 

this picture 

from the 

Internet. 

 

Respectfully yours, 

Antoinette Bazikos 
82

From: granbob@verizon.net

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:46 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: STOP !!!!

EPA, Stop carbon pollution. Assume it’s one of your families that live next to a coal fired power plant !! 

Bob Delaney 

Sherborn, Mass 
83

From: Thomas W. Bailey [atbailey@ieee.org]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:07 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Pollutants and CO2

Please make the electric power generation companies include the public costs for the toxic pollutants and

CO2 they produce.

Thomas W Bailey

45 Upland Rd

Concord MA
84

From: caryn graves [caryn@lmi.net]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:07 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Please reduce carbon pollution from power plants

To Whom it May Concern, 

Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United Statespollution that causes climate change. 

We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are 

no public health safeguards from carbon pollution. Carbon pollution also leads to increased 

air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year. More than 

35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards. 

Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects 

linked to climate change. More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy 

of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a 

serious public health issue. 

We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% 

reduction of carbon. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Caryn Graves 

Berkeley, CA 
85

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Chris Fox [bluedragonflydesigns@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:56 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 10:55 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Chris Fox 

Email: bluedragonflydesigns@gmail.com

Comments: 

I'm concerned about climate change. There are too many unknow consiquences for human culture 

and the remaining flora and fauna on our planet. 

I'm affraid that my unborn grand children will inherit a very unpleasant and chaotic world. 

Please forward to Congress. 

Regards, 

Chris Fox 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
86

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Martha Susan Adams [marthasadams@hotmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:25 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 10:25 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Martha Susan Adams 

Email: marthasadams@hotmail.com

Comments: I am a strong supporter of reducing carbon emissions. I think that climate change 

is the most critical issue of our time and applaud any efforts by the EPA or the 

administration to address the emissions of greenhouse gases. I would be a strong support of a 

carbon tax, which would make it unnecessary to have these sorts of standards. Until then, 

though, these standards are critical. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
87

From: Parsons, Judy [Judy.Parsons@uphs.upenn.edu]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:18 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Thanks

I would like to thank the people who insist on acting on this Global issue mainly because some of us fail to see the 

damage we have done over the years versus we also have to identify and fix it. I am 100% on repairing the damages 

done to incur what we are experiencing presently and might even get worst if we ignore the reality that it exists. I 

cannot attend the session in Philadelphia but would appreciate updates. Thanks again for doing a great job!! 

Judy Parsons 

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 

recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for 

delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and 

that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 

received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 
88

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Joel Carlson [Fox7799@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:13 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 10:13 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Joel Carlson 

Email: Fox7799@gmail.com

Comments: 

The key to reversing the destruction of our planet from the massive burning of fossil fuels 

is leaving fossil fuels in the ground. Biofuel from algae holds a lot of promise as does 

solar panels and Electric or Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles. 

350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is what many scientists, climate 

experts, and national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for sustainable life 

on earth. For many thousands of years before human industrialization it was 180-280 parts per 

million. Because of our massive burning of fossil fuels, we are now at 400 parts per million 

and rapidly rising. This is similar to the Permian period approx. 250 to 300 million years 

ago when huge volcanoes in what is now Russia raised the CO2 level to 900 ppm (parts per 

million) and the mean surface temperature 2 degrees C above modern level. Oceans rose 

significantly above modern levels, lost their oxygen and emitted deadly hydrogen sulphide 

gas. Nearly 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species died out. It would take 

millions of years, well into the Triassic period for life to recover from this catastrophe. 

Stopping this destruction of our planet is the most important issue of our time! 

We have got to stop burning fossil fuels as fast as possible. Solar panels for homes now are 

affordable and make economic sense. Electric and electric hybrid cars are rapidly developing, 

becoming more affordable and becoming a compelling buying decision. Buildings can be made 

much more energy efficient. 

Unfortunately most Republicans are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. We must 

vote them out of office. We all must do our part to stop burning fossil fuels! 

See http://vimeo.com/28991442

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
89

From: Jo Schaper [joschaper@socket.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:30 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: EPA is going in the correct direction...

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I would have never written except that I got a request to attend a listening session or write 

a comment to the EPA from my local Chamber of Commerce. 

The US Chambers of Commerce are wrong. Emissions rules to limit CO2 should be put in place as 

soon as reasonably possible, with the goal being the elimination of the heaviest polluters, 

mitigation by CO2 capture and recycling, and carbon sequestration into building materials, 

and other solid carbonates being implemented as soon as reasonably possible. 

Climate change exists. It's Halloween, the trees are still full of leaves and at peak color 

at latitude 38.36 degrees in Missouri. We need to do whatever we reasonably can to turn 

around the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, as soon as technologically and 

economically possible. I have a degree in geology, and studied this for an entire semester 

in a class on carbonate geochemistry. There are things we can do. Let's do them for our sake 

and that of having the planet remain a habitable place. 

Without people, there is no economy, anyway. 

Respectfully 

Jo Schaper 

46 Cedar Drive 

Pacific MO 63069 
90

From: Jon Facemire [jonfacemire@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:37 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I would like to express my support for strict carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. I am an 

Engineer at ERIN Engineering where I do risk assessment for nuclear power plants and a graduate student at the 

University of Maryland where I am studying energy policy. I see the threat of global warming and ocean 

acidification as our generations greatest challenges and I believe strong CO2 controls will be the key to 

avoiding catastrophic consequences. As a student I have modeled energy markets and come to realize the huge 

impact that CO2 regulations could have. As an engineer I have worked to develop CO2 free energy solutions. I 

hope to spend my life working to provide clean energy to avoid dangerous climate change and I hope that strict 

emissions limits can help make my work successful. 

Thanks, 

Jon Facemire 
91

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of M.E. Wilcox [mewilcox91@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:15 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/31/2013 - 09:14 

Submitted values are: 

Name: M.E. Wilcox 

Email: mewilcox91@gmail.com

Comments: Because the science and evidence of climate change and global warming are factual 

and dire, I support restrictions on carbon emissions from power plants. I believe that we 

must not settle for minimal restrictions, but rather that aggressive action must be taken 

against the severe pollution produced by power companies. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
92

From: Jeanette MacNeille [councilpresident@millbourneborough.org]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Air quality and asthma

I'm one of the millions of asthmatics in our country. In a good year I'm in the emergency 

room 4 or 5 times. In my worst year I lost count, but it was something over 17 visits. My 

best year was about two years ago, and I was only in there twice. I am so accustomed to the 

emergency room that often the first question the staff ask me is "Are you a doctor?" 

Honestly, no one wants to fit in so well in an emergency room that people think you belong 

there. Visits historically have ranged from about $4,500 to $17,500 in costs. The meds: about 

$3,500 a month, these days. There are the doctor visits, pulmonary function tests, the 

constant inhalers and the need for regular meds. It's not great. 

More than all of that, we ought to be thinking of the children. I personally know 4 different 

kids, agest 12 -18, who've died from asthma. When you lose a kid that young honestly you've 

lost a whole lifetime of productivity and joy and just plain living. It stinks. And we ought 

to consider the kids when we think about the price required to clean up our air. 

I serve as a local municipal council president. Our Borough was recently award an Air Quality 

Partnership Award from DVRPC, the regionally planning organization in our area. There is 

nothing I am prouder of, and we dedicated it to all the kids we know in the Borough who 

cannot breathe. We planted 161 new trees in 2012, became members of the Tree City USA 

program, used a firm called Eco-Goats to clear a steep bank of Japanese Knotwood rather than 

getting the gas-powered machinery down there. We put in speed tables to help control 

speeding, added legends to a state road, have worked to get new crosswalks on the same state 

road. We bought our street light system, upgraded the lights and saved more than $7,000 in 

electric costs while using 20% less energy. We had an energy audit done, and right now we're 

working on energy efficiency measures in our 100+ year old Borough Hall. We have tried -- 

unsuccessfully -- to get hybrid police cars, so that's a challenge still to be met. 

From my perspective, there's no cost too high for cleaner air. I work to breathe myself every 

day, and as an elected official I work on cleaner air for everyone in my borough. It's a 

long-term fight I know and I'll be long dead before things are really better -- but please do 

everything you can to improve this situation. 

Thank you. 

Jeanette MacNeille, President, Millbourne Borough Council Cell 610-755-1445 

35 North Millbourne Avenue 

Millbourne, PA 19082 
93

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Janson Thomas [jmt@jansonllc.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:44 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 15:44 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Janson Thomas 

Email: jmt@jansonllc.com

Comments: 

My name is Janson Thomas and I’m a member-owner of Platte-Clay Electric – a not-for-profit 

rural electric utility. I came here today because I’m very supportive of these regulations. 

It’s been a difficult few years for those of us in my community. While it was hard enough to 

make ends meet and then we saw our take-home pay decrease as the economy declined I know that 

every extra dollar spent on our electricity bill is a dollar invested in saving our 

children’s future in a world beyond coal. 

I respectfully ask the EPA to take actions that will decrease the pollution of energy 

companies and protect hardworking families like mine. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
94

From: Nelson Bock [nbock6552@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 1:27 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon Pollution Standards 

Submitting comments delivered at Oct. 30 EPA Region 8 hearing in digital format: 

Testimony at EPA region 8 hearing on regulations to reduce carbon emissions at existing power plants, Denver 

CO, Oct. 30, 2013 

 

My name is Nelson Bock, and I live here in Denver. I am an ordained minister in the Lutheran Church, and 

have taught religion and ethics at the college level. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of Colorado 

Interfaith Power and Light, which, as one of 40 affiliates of the national Interfaith Power and Light movement, 

works to mobilize religious communities to live out their faith and their calling to be stewards of creation by 

taking action to help prevent catastrophic climate change. We work with congregations from all faith traditions 

to help them imrove the energy efficiency of their facilities, to educate their members about climate change, and 

to engage in advocacy for public policies which move us away from reliance on fossil fuels and towards sources 

of clean, renewable energy. 

 

We are motivated by our faith; we know that the earth is a gift entrusted to our care. We are also informed and 

motivated by the science which tells us that our behavior is a primary driver of climate change. We know that 

the continued burning of fossil fuels for energy guarantees that we will experience catastrophic changes in the 

earth’s climate which will cause incalculable human suffering in the forms of famine, disease, and 

displacement, which will in turn cause severe social disruption, violence, and political and economic instability, 

and that those least responsible for climate change—the poor of the earth—will be impacted first and worst by 

these eventualities. 

 

With the unprecedented droughts, fires, and floods in Colorado the last couple of years, we have gotten just a 

glimpse of what is to come if we do not quickly and drastically begin to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases. I do not believe we can afford to build new fossil fuel-burning power plants unless 

and until it is demonstrated that they can operate without further contributing to atmospheric carbon pollution, 

and I do not believe we can afford to allow existing power plants to continue burning fossil fuels until the end 

of their operational lives. We must require them to quickly begin reducing their CO2 emissions, both through 

the use of new technologies to remove carbon pollution at the source of generation, as well as aggressively 

using demand-side management tools. 

 

The other approach we can take concurrently is to ensure that energy consumers pay the true costs—all the 

costs—of the energy we consume, and by that I mean the cost of remediation for all impacts to air, water, and 
95

land. Incorporating these costs into the consumer’s cost to purchase energy will cause them to reduce their use 

of fossil fuel-sourced energy and increase the demand for clean renewable energy. 
96

From: Sarah Currie-Halpern [scurrie541@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:57 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon Pollution feedback

To Whom it may concern at the EPA, 

I am a NYC resident, a working Mom, and a member of my community board. I absolutely support 

carbon limits for major polluters including power plants, factories, etc. 

Many countries around the world, including Germany, UK and even China have taken steps to 

reduce their carbon pollution and are seeing real results. It's time for the US to step up 

and back up our promises with action. 

Please don't let corporate lobbyists and the "needs" of corporations stand in the way of 

imposing carbon pollution reduction mandates. The American people, and the health and 

security of future generations are relying on the EPA to make this happen. 

Thank you, 

Sarah Currie-Halpern 

917-498-5748 

Sent from my iPad 
97

From: Ann and Tom [annntom22@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:57 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: FW: Listen to carbon pollution opinions

EPA: Apparently I sent this message to you while it was still in draft and without signature. 

Ann Deutch 

4001 W Hougham Rd 

Trafalgar, Indiana 46181 

 

From: annntom22@hotmail.com

To: carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Subject: Listen to carbon pollution opinions 

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:30:03 -0400 

EPA: 

In brief-- I support requiring all power plants, especially coal plants, to significantly reduce the pollution they 

generate. This is true even though I know my own electric bill will rise because my power monopoly is almost 

exclusively coal-dependent. I have no choice between using the available electricity of going off the grid. I'd 

prefer to require my power company to spend the extra money to seek out and use cleaner and renewable 

energy sources. 

 

Here are a few details for your consideration: 

 

My power company terms coalbed methane an "alternative energy". Hogwash. It is another form of fossil 

fuel and the new regulations must not let my power company off the hook just because of misleading 

vocabulary. 

 

My State Department of Energy advocates using our abundant wind energy potential to generate electricity 

for sale out of state while continuing to provide dirty cheap coal power to our residents. This wrong-headed 

approach might be ameliorated by new federal regulations. 
98

From: Anika Berhang [anikaberhang@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:06 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Re: Clean Air Act

Public comment as I am located in Los Angeles and cannot physically attend. 

The time is now: 

There can be no further delay or compromised effort to 'just curb' carbon pollution. 

Please remember your organization's true mission: To act and decide on behalf of the people's interest, health 

and safety ONLY. 

Nothing should be more important than finally implementing the most stringent standards against Air Pollution. 

And if that means one industry's days are numbered, so be it. 

We need Renewables to take over asap and prolonging this transition will only harm humanities well-being 

further. Slay the dragon as you would rip off a band aid already: bold and swift motion. 

And please, please don't be corrupt to any potential money donations trying to thwart your efforts. 

Anika Berhang - EcoBroker®certified

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic 

download of this picture from the Internet.

John Aaroe Group Sunset Strip | Beverly Hills | Downtown LA | Sherman Oaks | Pasadena 

cell: 310.967.9233 

www.anikaberhang.com

www.aaroearchitectural.com

www.youtube.com/user/AnikaBerhang

CALBRE# 01821300
99

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Brian Ramey [brianramey@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:19 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/29/2013 - 16:18 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Brian Ramey 

Email: brianramey@comcast.net

Comments: 

I am proud of the EPA’s recent proposal to curb the addition of carbon from any new 

generating plants into our atmosphere. The urgency of making changes to the way we do things 

to preserve our atmosphere is critical. I know there are many ways we can contribute to 

reducing greenhouse gases but one element I believe we should be concentrating our efforts on 

is small scale solar power to replace all the many gas driven "emergency" generators sold 

each year to consumers who feel they must have emergency "stand by" electrical power 

generation capabilities. The science in providing easily portable solar power "units" for 

the home or business cannot be that far away. I personally googled "generators" the other 

day for my own home use and was surprised to find one option was solar panels. 

I hope we can develop a NETWORK of solar generation, through the possible use 

of brownfield properties in urban areas. I do worry about the Department of 

Energy pushing too hard to utilize large industrial solar generation on industrial sized 

federal lands, such as deserts as an avenue to substitute for other systems. I believe the 

use of large industrial solar systems has environmental consequences that are unrecoverable 

and will end up costing our society a great deal in the loss of critter habitat and arable 

land for future agriculture use. 

Also please stop the shipment of coal to China please, please please. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
100

From: Ann and Tom [annntom22@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:30 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Listen to carbon pollution opinions

EPA: 

In brief-- I support requiring all power plants, especially coal plants, to significantly reduce the pollution they 

generate. This is true even though I know my own electric bill will rise because my power monopoly is almost 

exclusively coal-dependent. I have no choice between using the available electricity of going off the grid. I'd 

prefer to require my power company to spend the extra money to seek out and use cleaner and renewable 

energy sources. 

 

Here are a few details for your consideration: 

 

My power company terms coalbed methane an "alternative energy". Hogwash. It is another form of fossil 

fuel and the new regulations must not let my power company off the hook just because of misleading 

vocabulary. 

 

My State Department of Energy advocates using our abundant wind energy potential to generate electricity 

for sale out of state while continuing to provide dirty cheap coal power to our residents. This wrong-headed 

approach might be ameliorated by new federal regulations. 
101

From: William Heiland [14hei@gmx.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:05 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Why are limits controversial?

I don't understand why there such controversy over limits to carbon emissions from present power plants. Do 

we all not breath the same air? If the utilities want to be good neighbors and civic minded they should not object 

to limits on their stack exhaust that effects the lungs and health of all of us. Not to mention the effect on the 

earth's climate. 

I thank you for opportunity to attend the meeting in Philadelphia, Pa. on the eighth of November. 
102

From: Burke, Stephen J [steve.burke@nacoal.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:11 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Regulating Existing Coal-Fired Plants

Good Morning, 

First of all I appreciate EPAs desire to do the right things for the future of our country and its citizens. I wish that it was a 

commitment by all citizens and elected officials to work together towards a better, stronger country with more of a 

focus on coming together and finding more common ground. The situation in Washington today certainly leaves most 

Americans feeling sick to their stomachs in regard to lack of cooperation, respect, and community displayed today. And 

it certain spits in the face of those that have shed blood to give us the freedom that we often take for granted. 

I am not going to tell you why you should not add addition regulations to coal fired power plants or how it will likely 

cause me to lose my job that I have been proud to have for almost 14 years. I want to focus on the country and our 

need to work together to take small calculated steps towards a better tomorrow with a deep, conscious and 

compassionate understanding of those impacted today and into the future. 

I think we are missing grandpa today. Grandpa listens............listens.............says a few 

words......................listens................waits................never impulsive, never assumes, softly and slowly steers with a steady 

hand. 

EPA please consider your steps carefully and with reverence towards the American people and their futures. 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my input, and God Bless you all in your pursuit of a better, stronger America 

Sincerely, 

Steve Burke

Short Range Engineering 

The Falkirk Mining Company 

Office 701-250-2440 

Cell 701-426-7160 

stephen.burke@nacoal.com

NOTICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from 

disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible 

for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to 

any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender 

immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not 

consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient 

and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or 

its representatives. 
103

From: alan apt [alanrapt@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:03 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Reducing Emissions

Dear EPA, 

Please do tighten power plant emissions dramatically ASAP. These regulations are long overdue. You know the 

negative impacts on human health, plant and animal life, and the climate. There will be long term economic 

savings, and health benefits, when these badly needed regulations force a switch to less polluting technology; 

especially clean, renewable energy. 

Thank You. 

-- 

Alan Apt

PH: 970-980-9027

P.O. Box 620 Nederland, CO 80466
104

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Dr. James Lazell [hq@theconservationagency.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:36 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/29/2013 - 08:35 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Dr. James Lazell 

Email: hq@theconservationagency.org

Comments: I am a professional biologist and ecologist with a long career invested in 

environmental conservation. We must reduce carbon pollution and overpopulation. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
105

From: Mariella Colvin [colvin@ecentral.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:04 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I am fully in support of strong pollution standards for existing power plants both for health reasons 

and to combat climate change. (I wanted to keep this short and sweet but I feel quite strongly about 

this)

Mariella Colvin

3032 10th

Boulder, CO

80304
106

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Margy Halpin [mahchwink@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:37 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 10/26/2013 - 08:36 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Margy Halpin 

Email: mahchwink@gmail.com

Comments: 

Thank you for all of your efforts and work on behalf of a healthy, functioning biosphere for 

all life. 

Thank you for the listening sessions and for the opportunity for input. 

Sincerely, from, Margy Halpin, McLean, VA 22101 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
107

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kyle Evenson [kevenson@boileakers.org]

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 5:35 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 10/25/2013 - 17:34 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Kyle Evenson 

Email: kevenson@boileakers.org

Comments: Hope everything goes well 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
108

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Evelyn Arévalo [jaragua@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:28 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 15:28 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Evelyn Arévalo 

Email: jaragua@yahoo.com

Comments: Carbon pollution places our children, their grandparents and those of us suffering 

from respiratory illness, serious conditions or face economic problems at risk. We have to 

protect our children and our sick from the causes of climate change. Please set strong 

standards for existing power plants and reduce the carbon pollution that contaminates our air 

and worsens our health. Gracias! 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
109

From: D. R. Tucker [drtuck6@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:50 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Re: My prepared comments for 11/4 EPA hearing in Boston

The proposed EPA emissions standards for new coal-fired power plants are literal lifesavers, 

necessary armaments in the battle against the hazards of human-caused climate change. With 

these new standards, the EPA has struck a blow for clean air and a stable climate. 

Earlier this President Obama issued a challenge to Congress: if the House and Senate did not 

take affirmative steps to limit unrestrained carbon pollution, he would take action though 

the EPA. After many months of Congressional recalcitrance, the EPA has finally taken action--

and not a moment too soon. 

These new standards will guarantee that new coal-fired plants will be state-of-the-art, 

implementing the best available technology to capture and sequester dangerous carbon. Thus, 

these standards will require accountability to public health on behalf of power providers--an 

accountability that too many of these providers have long since escaped. 

If you've ever heard the labored breathing of someone suffering from asthma...if you've ever 

known someone whose health has been diminished by perilous pollution from coal-fired power 

plants...if you've ever experienced the destruction to person and property caused by poisoned 

weather...then these new emissions standards represent a prayer answered and a promise kept. 

These strong standards will reduce medical bills, FEMA costs, and casualty rates. There is 

simply no rational argument against these new standards...and no rational basis for delaying 

their implementation longer than necessary. 

Some may say that these new rules are either not necessary or too expensive. They're simply 

wrong. It is necessary to avoid the expensive risks of climate change. It is necessary to 

take these effective steps to protect our air and our atmosphere. It is necessary--

absolutely necessary--to implement these strong standards. 

Devone R. Tucker 

Sent from my iPhone 
110

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Katharine Hayhoe [katharine.hayhoe@ttu.edu]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:34 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 10:34 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Katharine Hayhoe 

Email: katharine.hayhoe@ttu.edu

Comments: As a climate scientist, my research and that of my colleagues clearly shows that 

human-induced climate change is already having a serious impact on human and natural systems 

in the United States and around the world. Future changes depend on the choices we make now: 

if we do not limit carbon emissions, global temperature changes will exceed +4oC by end of 

century and the consequences -- on agriculture, human health, water resources, 

infrastructure, and the economy -- will be severe. On the other hand, by setting sensible 

limits on emissions, we can limit global temperature change to +2oC. This lower threshold 

still entails consequences but, in many cases, at levels we can adapt to. Setting emission 

standards for power plants is a crucial and essential first step to preserving the world we 

will be passing on to our children. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
111

From: Mike Jones [mjones3244@aol.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:27 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Dear EPA, 

I support a strong EPA rule limiting carbon emissions from fossil fuel-burning new power 

plants, with the goal of reducing the threats of climate change and related extreme weather 

events that ultimately jeopardize public health. The EPA's new proposal will especially help 

protect the health of children, seniors, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, and those 

living in poverty. I live in an area with a coal burning plant and am directly affected by 

the air that is influenced by this plant. 

Please work for the country! 

Mike Jones 

3244 Lake Shore Rd S 

Denver, NC 28037 
112

From: Betty Chafin Rash [bettychafinrash@aol.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:23 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Dear EPA, 

I support a strong EPA rule limiting carbon emissions from fossil fuel-burning new power 

plants, with the goal of reducing the threats of climate change and related extreme weather 

events that ultimately jeopardize public health. The EPA's new proposal will especially help 

protect the health of children, seniors, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, and those 

living in poverty. 

Betty Chafin Rash 

610 N. Pine Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202 
113

From: Phil Konigsberg [bayterracephil@msn.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:46 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants

I was unable to attend the public testimonial sessions available for the public to comment Wednesday, October 

23, 2013 as intended so I would like to provide an abbreviated portion here. 

I have restricted pulmonary disease and require oxygen at night combined with a BiPap respirator that I use 

throughout the day on a daily basis. I therefore am urging the EPA to use their authority to their fullest extent to 

reduce and eliminate carbon pollution that emits from existing power plants far and near the residential area of 

Queens County, New York in order for me and my wife (who also has lung disease) and our neighborhood to 

breathe clean air. 

Thank you. 

Phil Konigsberg 

bayterracephil@msn.com

Smokefree Community Advocate 

Queens Tobacco Control Coalition
114

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mike Schuhow [captmike_e29@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:31 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 21:31 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Mike Schuhow 

Email: captmike_e29@hotmail.com

Comments: The power production industry has proven to be historically selfish in their quest 

for profit and adamantly defiant of any hindrance to their quest and devoid of remorse for 

the toxic results of their efforts. In short, I support any controls brought to bear on their 

industry to ensure our health and safety now, and for our future generations. Lord knows they 

will not do it themselves. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
115

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of William Heiland [14hei@gmx.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:41 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 12:41 

Submitted values are: 

Name: William Heiland 

Email: 14hei@gmx.com

Comments: There is no doubt that human activity is effecting the earth's climate. These 

effects have accelerated in the last twenty five years. As the recent disastrous storms 

throughout the world have shown. The sea ice is melting at a alarming rate, and this is 

affecting the ocean currents. These changing current patterns have affects not only on 

weather from heating up the atmosphere, but on the migration of nutrients for sea live from 

whales to microscopic organisms. We must reduce our fossil fuel pollution of the seas and air 

before these changes create a world environment that is hostile to life. An we must start now 

because there is no one who truly knows how much the world can adapt before there is a 

disastrous tipping point in the world's climate. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
116

From: Joe Spease [spease4kc@everestkc.net]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:45 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: economy improves with reduced carbon emissions

To the EPA:

Thank you for your efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It is very important for the future of life on the planet that 

carbon restrictions be put in place immediately.

I want to emphasize that claims made by oil, gas, and coal companies of the damage to the economy from regulations 

on carbon emissions are completely false. In fact, the economy will improve by reducing carbon emissions. 

Employing new energy storage technologies such as compressed air energy storage, and large-scale battery storage 

systems, we can use low-cost wind power as a baseload power replacement for coal power and natural gas power. The 

cost of electricity from these energy storage technologies combined with wind power is competitive right now with the 

fossil fuel electricity.

But even better than the low cost of electricity from wind/CAES projects, is the fact that millions of new jobs would be 

created by these renewable power baseload energy systems. A new manufacturing base would be created in the USA 

that could last for hundreds of years. And damaging healthcare costs from coal plant emissions would be eliminated.

Arguments by fossil fuel companies that reducing carbon emissions is bad for our economy are completely false. 

Regulating carbon emissions is the best thing that could happen to our economy. 

Thank you for hearing my comments.

Joe Spease

CEO, WindSoHy

9934 Goddard

Overland Park, KS 66214

913-766-9749

CELL: 913-481-2869

Jspease@windsohy.com

www.windsohy.com

 
117

From: Jared Howe [jaredchowe@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:34 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: We need to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants

To whom it may concern, 

My name is Jared Howe and I live with my wife and family in Seattle. I am writing to you because I am very 

concerned about our shared future. 

We have a moral obligation to our children and future generations to address the causes of climate change. 

I support a strong carbon pollution standard for EXISTING power plants, which are responsible for 40% of the 

carbon pollution that causes climate change. 

Currently we protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public 

health safeguards against carbon pollution. 

According to the American Lung Association, more than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong 

carbon pollution standards. Millions of children live in areas that receive an “F” rating for at least one air 

quality measure. 

Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate 

change. 

According to a column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, “More than 120 health organizations, including the 

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American 

Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society and others, are on record 

stating: ‘Climate change is a serious public health issue. As temperatures rise, more Americans will be exposed 

to conditions that can result in illness and death due to respiratory illness, heat- and weather-related stress and 

disease carried by insects. These health issues are likely to have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable 

communities, including children, older adults, those with serious health conditions and the most economically 

disadvantaged.’” 

Please do whatever is needed to make sure that existing power plants decrease their carbon pollution. The future 

of our planet literally hangs in the balance. 

Respectfully, 

Jared Howe 
118

From: David Lewicki [david@ndpc.org]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:51 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Strong support for carbon pollution standards

I am the pastor of a 350-member Presbyterian church in Decatur, GA. 

I strongly support the EPA's new carbon pollution standards. We live a state with huge coal-powered plants, 

with a state energy monopoly (Georgia Power) that has limited the growth of renewable energy sources. 

We experience a short term gain (lower energy prices) but grave long-term loss (health consequences, 

environmental degradation, climate change). 

In our church, we teach that the earth is a precious gift. Care for the earth is the sacred work that all human 

beings share. Reducing greenhouse gases and lowering our environmental impact is part of our church's core 

faith practice. 

Therefore, we strongly support the EPA's work to protect our environment through the implementation of these 

new carbon pollution standards. 

Respectfully, 

Rev. David Lewicki 

-- 

Rev. David Lewicki 

Co-pastor 

North Decatur Presbyterian Church 

404-636-1429 (office) 

www.ndpc.org
119

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Monica Kraatz [mokraatz@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:24 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 01:24 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Monica Kraatz 

Email: mokraatz@gmail.com

Comments: 

 Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants 

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 

 The United States currently has NO national carbon limits for fossil fuel power plants—

in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans support such a commonsense solution. 

 Energy efficiency is a clean energy solution that can save businesses and families 

money while creating jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution and other harmful air 

pollutants. 

 Climate change will impact many facets of human health in the U.S., including through 

worsened air quality (which means more asthma attacks for our kids); increased transmission 

of infectious diseases from insects, food, and water; and increased impacts from extreme 

weather including floods, storm surges, and wildfires. 

 In fact, American communities are already facing the high costs of climate change. In 

2012, a year-long drought led to widespread crop failure in 22 states. Western wildfires 

burned over 9.2 million acres. And Hurricane Sandy devastated major population centers in the 

Northeast. In fact, 2012's 

12 climate disasters each caused more than $1 billion dollars of damage, according to the 

National Climatic Data Center. 

 The winds of change are blowing briskly. In red, purple and blue states alike, wind is 

meeting new electricity needs. In 2012, wind power led the nation in new capacity additions 

for electricity generation. Working together, our nation can power forward with clean, safe 

and cost-effective electricity. 

We cannot delay any longer. It is time to act, and these regulations on existing power plants 

are an integral part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
120

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of HERSHEY [hrshjulien37@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:36 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 22:36 

Submitted values are: 

Name: HERSHEY 

Email: hrshjulien37@gmail.com

Comments: I know of no practical way to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. 

They should all be replaced by plants deriving energy from liquid fluoride thorium reactors 

(molten salt reactors-- MSR). 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
121

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Richard Scoles [stargazer1944@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:21 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 20:21 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Richard Scoles 

Email: stargazer1944@hotmail.com

Comments: Regardless of the specific details, we must establish and adhere to stringent 

carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants. In addition, efforts toward 

reducing our waste of energy by private business and state and local governmental bodies must 

likewise be addressed. The detrimental effect of fossil fuel use on climate change and the 

health of our planet are already evident and compounding at a rate far beyond expectations. 

The future of our children and grandchildren are in the balance now. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
122

From: Barbara Walker [bwalker@ibcbanks.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:07 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Dear EPA,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on carbon pollution standards for existing sources.

For 60 years I have lived primarily in Denver, Colorado. While we have greatly improved Denver’s pollution 

problems over the past, I know first-hand that its pollution exacerbated my breathing problems, including asthma. It 

was not until we bought a second home in the foothills of Tucson did I realize how Denver’s pollution still adversely 

impacts my breathing. We just moved out of Denver to the foothills west of Denver, and I am breathing better. Not 

to mention my eye itchiness is gone when I am in either out-of-Denver location. I am not alone in my personal 

reaction to pollution, as discussed below. 

Now, after 60 years of living, I am first-hand experiencing dramatic swings in our weather. Changes I can attest to 

from the weather when I was growing up, to the horrific weather disasters in the past 10 to 15 years. Drought in 

both states that I witness firsthand. Native vegetation in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert is dying at an alarming rate. A 

monsoon storm so fierce, I could see its destruction on the side of the Catalina Mountains at the base of Mount 

Lemmon from two miles away as the crow flies where we live. I don’t need to remind you of Colorado’s recent 

horrific Front Range floods. 

I believe firmly we are responsible for these dramatic weather patterns across the globe. I also believe we have a 

moral obligation to our children and future generations to address the causes of climate change. I strongly support 

a strong carbon pollution standard for EXISTING power plants, which are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution 

that causes climate change. We already realized we need to protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and 

other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards against carbon pollution. Why? The strength of and 

financial contributions by the carbon industries. As a lobbyist, I see this power first hand. Our government must 

stand firm against this influence and stand firm for our citizens and our planet. 

As described above, I have experience first-hand the dangerous impacts of carbon pollution on my own health. 

According to the American Lung Association, more than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong 

carbon pollution standards. Millions of children live in areas that receive an “F” rating for at least one air quality 

measure. Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations like me are at a higher risk of the health effects linked 

to climate change. According to a column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, “More than 120 health organizations, 

including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American 

Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society and others, are on record stating: 

‘Climate change is a serious public health issue. As temperatures rise, more Americans will be exposed to conditions 

that can result in illness and death due to respiratory illness, heat- and weather-related stress and disease carried by 

insects. These health issues are likely to have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable communities, including 

children, older adults, those with serious health conditions and the most economically disadvantaged.’” [Star Ledger 

(NJ), 5/15/12]

Please do what is morally correct and strengthen carbon pollution standards for existing sources. These rich mega 

companies will continue to thrive in spite of their protestations of financial ruin. Nonsense.
123

Barbara Walker 

5450 Windsong Court, Morrison CO 80465 and 5348 North Fort Yuma Trail, Tucson AZ 85750 / 303.722.7852 / 

walkerfeigin@msn.com

 
124

From: Holly Hunnicutt [hhunnicutt@mail.rockefeller.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:37 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: please help the planet

Dear EPA, 

It is time to place limits on carbon pollution, the leading cause of greenhouse gas and global warming. Please 

do set these limits without delay, in the name of the planet and every living thing on it. 

Sincerely, 

Holly 

~~~

Holly Hunnicutt

HHMI/Rockefeller University

hollyh@rockefeller.edu

212.327.7242
125

From: Eleanor MacLellan [elmac104@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:23 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• The United States currently has NO national carbon limits for fossil fuel power plants—in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans 

support such a commonsense solution.

• Energy efficiency is a clean energy solution that can save businesses and families money while creating jobs and reducing emissions 

of carbon pollution and other harmful air pollutants.

• Climate change will impact many facets of human health in the U.S., including through worsened air quality (which means more 

asthma attacks for our kids); increased transmission of infectious diseases from insects, food, and water; and increased impacts from 

extreme weather including floods, storm surges, and wildfires.

• In fact, American communities are already facing the high costs of climate change. In 2012, a year-long drought led to widespread 

crop failure in 22 states. Western wildfires burned over 9.2 million acres. And Hurricane Sandy devastated major population centers in 

the Northeast. In fact, 2012's 12 climate disasters each caused more than $1 billion dollars of damage, according to the 

National Climatic Data Center.

• The winds of change are blowing briskly. In red, purple and blue states alike, wind is meeting new electricity needs. In 2012, wind 

power led the nation in new capacity additions for electricity generation. Working together, our nation can power forward with clean, 

safe and cost-effective electricity.

The above statements encapsulate my feelings about national carbon limits. Of course, we must limit carbon emissions. The price of global 

warming is too severe!

Eleanor MacLellan, C ambridge, MA.
126

From: Kay Coats [umome@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:05 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment Regarding Carbon Pollution Standards, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

EPA Policy Makers: 

Governments are rarely proactive in dealing with future realities demanding great changes in perspective, 

preferring rather to ignore coming realities until they are overwhelmingly obvious. Do have the foresight and 

courage to acknowledge that in little over 200 years the impact of relying on the use of fossel fuels for energy 

has created an ensuing climate change that will by the end of this century, inundate the world's port cities 

with at least several feet of water. The effect of Hurricane Sandy only gave New York City a taste of what is 

coming. 

 

Your duty to this country is to put in place the strictest and lowest carbon emissions standards on power 

plants, transportation, etc., legally possible, until the laws and energy sources for replacing the use of fossil 

fuels finally defeat the money, power and influence of its vested interests. 

 

Thank you, 

Marilyn K. Coats 

119 Second Ave. SE 

Magee, MS 39111 
127

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bruce Willock [bhw2@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:41 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:41 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Bruce Willock 

Email: bhw2@aol.com

Comments: 

I am 80 year old, an "ordinary citizen" with no technical expertise but, hopefully, some 

common sense. 

I agree with the international scientific experts regarding GHGs and global warming. BUT, 

even if the skeptics are right, a"do nothing" approach today is too risky, and the price to 

future generations too great, if they are wrong. 

The sane approach is to reduce GHGs worldwide, from all sources, as quickly as possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express this opinion. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
128

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ken [Oldshipkrb@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:03 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:02 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Ken 

Email: Oldshipkrb@comcast.net

Comments: Please tightly regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants. The climate 

change crisis is upon us, and we have no time to lose. 

Future generations will judge us, and appropriately so. Thank you for all you can do. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
129

From: fmoolten [fmoolten@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:07 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Dear EPA Administrators,

 

I vigorously applaud EPA efforts to restrict carbon emissions. I will not be able to attend any of the listening sessions, but 

in addition to offering my support here, I thought it worthwhile to call your attention to plans for orchestrated opposition to 

EPA regulations. Among these are efforts by contrarian climate blogs to encourage their audiences to contribute negative 

views. One example is the widely read blog, Watts Up With That (WUWT), as illustrated in this piece - 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/epa-to-listen-then-presumably-ignore-the-public-on-power-plant-co2-

emissions/#more-96110. You are probably already aware of these actions, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention them 

again in case there is any inclination to judge responses simply by the number of respondents.

 

With best wishes for success.

 

Sincerely,

 

Fred Moolten
130

From: Ate Atema [ate@Atemanyc.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:47 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: 111(d) Carbon Pollution Standards For Existing Power Plants NYC Public Listening Session

Dear EPA,

I hope you’ll factor in the long-term economic and human costs of carbon pollution to our country and beyond over the short-term 

economic concerns of plant owners and our energy needs, and strongly support tighter limits on carbon pollution from our country’s 

power plants.

The costs our country will incur to cope with adjusting infrastructure alone to accommodate rising sea levels and thawing 

permafrost alone will dwarf any shorter-term economic upside in lower power generation costs. Increased severe weather and 

related phenomena of flooding, mudslides, drought, crop losses, and forest fires will also force major resettlement and 

infrastructure changes, and cost our country $140B just last year. This will also result in increased health care and agricultural costs 

due to increased disease and pest activity, and the attendant increase in human suffering associated with all these trends. 

Since power plants generate 40% of our carbon pollution, it is critical that we focus on reducing their carbon emissions as much as 

possible to minimize their long-term costs and consequences to our economy and citizens.

Regards,

Ate Atema

Principal, Atema Architecture

New York, NY
131

From: Dick Guldi [rlguldi@tx.rr.com]

Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:08 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Input for Carbon Pollution Reduction

I want to submit my input for Carbon Pollution Reduction since I will be unable to attend the 

session in Dallas due to travel plans. 

I would like to tell you about my personal experience with lignite fired power plants in 

Texas. My father worked for Alcoa Aluminum in Rockdale Tx, where lignite was burned to 

generate power to smelt aluminum. While I was happy that my father had a job, I was unhappy 

to breath the air in Rockdale. Every trip I made there - some 300 trips between 1971 and 

whenever they shut down the old lignite fired plant, my noise started dripping as soon as I 

got out of the car, and it didn't stop until I got home. The first time I visited Rockdale 

after the old generator plant was taken off line, I had no nose problems, and I never did in 

50 or so 

subsequent trips. That makes 300 trips with the old lignite plant 

where I always had nasal drip and 50 trips after it was turned off where I never had the drip 

- a pretty conclusive demonstration that dirty air is unhealthy. I'm the canary for society. 

My nose is more sensitive than other people's, and my nose tells us that Rockdale air was bad 

from that old lignite burning plant. My nose dripped to try to cleanse the air pollution. 

Now regarding the current situation in Texas, I'm sure you know that Texas has something like 

four of the five dirtiest coal plants in the 

United States. These dirty plants need to be retired right away. 

The first thing this situation shows is that some states, like Texas, have fought against 

clean air practices tooth and nail since the beginning of time. Texas legislators are more 

interested in letting 

industry do whatever it likes than in keeping people healthy. The 

first lesson is that only the EPA can help us get clean air, and we need very strong EPA 

activity towards this end. 

The second issue associated with these dirty coal plants, as you most also likely know, is 

that their nearly bankrupt owner, Luminant, will likely have to sell their coal plants to 

another company. We fear that the other company may somehow manage to remain exempt from 

clean air laws and thus be able to continue operating the dirty plants. This would be 

reprehensible. The plants are a significant source of air pollution in the Dallas-Ft Worth 

Metroplex, 8.8 million people live in a non-attainment area, and where the asthma rate is 

twice the national average. Please do not allow the old dirty Luminant coal plants to 

continue to operate. 

The next input is that the EPA needs to accelerate the transition to clean energy. Natural 

gas is NOT green energy, and don't let anyone get confused on this. I have friends in 

Arlington, TX whose families have gotten cancer since fracking began across the street from 

their house. 

Arlington citizens report frequent noxious smells, dirty air from diesel trucks and pumps, 

and a nine foot sinkhole. Parker County Texas has just had its second verified case of 

methane pollution in a family well, this case was even acknowledged by the Texas Railroad 

Commission, an agency that has been as notoriously pro fossil fuels as can possibly be 

imagined. Last week, Ovilla, a small community 15 miles SW of Dallas, had its first 

earthquake in recorded history - near a fracking disposal well. The most recent survey shows 

that 49% of Americans oppose fracking. That fraction is going to increase, not decrease. 
132

San Antonio and Austin often get over 50% of their electricity from wind and solar. North 

Texas could do this if we could expedite building infrastructure to bring in more electricity 

from wind farms in the Panhandle. Austin subsidizes the installation of solar panels on 

family homes in quantities to sufficient to generate 100% of a family's 

previous year's energy, but Dallas subsidizes only 70%. Last month, 

our family and five of our friends installed solar panels on our homes, and we couldn't be 

more pleased. It the Dallas Metroplex had subsidies like those in Austin, we could 

accelerate the use of solar energy. 

Don't let the fossil fuel industry complain that wind and solar energy have an unfair 

advantage in being subsidized. Many studies have shown that their subsidies are a small 

fraction of the costs to society from harmful side effects of the fossil fuel industries, 

that are born completely by citizens. Last month, my homeowner's insurance increased 25% in 

a single year due to costs of repairing roofs damaged by the increasing number of hail storms 

all over Texas as the earth heats up. 

That's $500 each year that the fossil fuel industry cost me just for the roof of my house. 

With North Texas asthma cases occurring at a frequency twice as great as the US average, over 

100 Dallas physicians now oppose fracking because it exacerbates asthma. 

Lastly, three tar sands pipeline through metropolitan centers and their reservoirs threaten 

to rupture as they have in Kalamazoo and Mayflower Arkansas, making people sick and polluting 

water. The repurposed 38-year old Seaway tar sands pipeline, similar to the repurposed 57-

year old Pegasus tar sands pipeline, runs for a distance of 40 miles within one of five north 

Texas reservoirs. The probability that it will rupture, like its worn out cousins, and 

destroy a reservoir is 30% over 

30 years, and a contaminated lake will drain into the Trinity River, a water source for 

Houston and for the Texas rice farmers. Destruction of one North Texas reservoir would 

deprive 8.8 million people of 10% of their water effectively forever, because you can't 

remove arsenic and mercury from the bottom of a lake. None of our Texas municipalities have 

the capability to detect or remove other harmful substances contained in tar sands crude, 

including carcinogenic benzene, xylene, toluene, and naptha. And finally, we now have well 

documented evidence that TransCanada's Keystone-Gulf tar sands pipeline in East Texas was 

installed using procedures known to have led to leaks on their previous pipelines. Over 80 

sections of pipe were removed and 'replaced', but the replacement also involved faulty 

methodology. It is very likely that Keystone-Gulf will rupture soon after it starts up. 

Lord, help us. We're depending on the EPA. 

Thank you very much, 

Richard and Christine Guldi 

7228 La Sobrina Dr 

Dallas, Tx 75248 

972-239-5878 
133

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Laura Merli [merll431@newschool.edu]

Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:59 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 11:58 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Laura Merli 

Email: merll431@newschool.edu 

Comments: The new standards on power plants are a good step forward, but do not go far enough 

in limiting emissions. My generation is aware of the irreparable harm that methods of power 

generation have already caused human health and the environment. At a time when WHO has added 

air pollution to its list of carcinogens, and less harmful power generation technologies are 

available, existing power plants should not get a free pass to harm humanity. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
134

From: Jacqueline Victor [Jacqueline.Victor@du.edu]

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: fracking

Importance: High

Dear anyone with a conscience, 

It is clear that we need to clean up dirty power plants or continue to suffer the consequences on our health and 

environment—effects that cannot be reversed once the pollutants have drifted to the earth's surface and water. Another 

bigger problem is that the EPA with the president's current policy of fracking us to DEATH is dropping the ball on 

reporting just how extremely dirty fracking is—huge amounts of methane and CO2,etc. released into the atmosphere 

adding to global warming not to mention the water pollution it causes with the horendous chemicals the process uses to 

extract these carbon fuels, earthquakes, etc. It is a huge step backwards ands threatens the entire world as much as 

loosing our democracy does—if not more. Stand up and fight for us, not for corporations who could care less how much 

of the entire world they completely spoil. If the EPA and the FDA are working for the corporate world and tied to political 

pressures, we are all screwed. This should be beyond illegal. Fracking is killing us. 

Sincerely, 

Jacqueline Victor 
135

From: Tammy Ellis [ellis.tammy.tammy@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 5:18 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: CHILDREN AT RISK FOR ASHMA TODAY

I am a mother of three children. Two born in the 90's and one born in 2000. The one born in 2000 has ashma 

problems every month of the year. My Family 

has no history of Ashma. This is Pollution. A toxic chemical, called Carcinogens that cause Cancer. 

 

This could be in products and the Air. Soda company's are the biggest Polluters. The Government 

has to do something now. Thank-u. Tammy Ellis 

ellis.tammy.tammy@gmail.com
136

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jim Fary [jimfary@earthlink.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:50 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 16:49 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Jim Fary 

Email: jimfary@earthlink.net

Comments: For our families and our future, we need strong carbon pollution standards. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
137

From: Shaun Walker [xshaun75@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:56 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Humans are not put on Earth to make money.. 

Wake up:) 

Please 

Free energy technology exists, there is no need to rape our home planet for coal and/or oil. 

Do you care? 

Karma is real:) 

*YoU aRe LoVeD* 
138

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Aaron Wesche [Wesche@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:40 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 19:40 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Aaron Wesche 

Email: Wesche@gmail.com

Comments: We have been creating energy the same way for hundreds of years, burning fossil 

fuels and putting off carbon emissions. Recently it has been proven that this is having a 

catastrophic affect of the ecosystem of Earth. I understand that many people support 

themselves and their families by working in the coal and oilfield industries, but that 

doesn't justify the organized destruction of our planet. There are clean energy sources that 

typically cost less than fossil fuel combustion of any kind. We need to put coal power where 

it belongs, in history books and museums. there is no if and or but, carbon emissions need to 

be reduced drastically within the next decade or we will be facing some much more serious 

problems. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
139

From: jhjennings@juno.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:20 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comments on climate chamge

Dear EPA 

 

In 1977-78 I worked in the lab at SIO led by Dr. Keeling that monitored the world's CO2 and I know climate 

change is a problem. The fossil fuel usage must go down. I feel that the U.S. should not drill for oil in the 

Arctic and should not build the Keystone pipeline. Also, vehicles that use electricity should be used and there 

should be solar cells in deserts like the Mojave in California to harvest energy and windmills and other creative 

ways of gathering energy should be employed. Somehow there needs to be enough pressure on recalcitrant 

money-making interests to stem the tide of climate change. Then and only then we will have a livable planet. 

 

For you information I am a published scientist with two articles in mathematical biology and two in physical 

chemistry and am a Phi Beta Kappa graduate in Chemistry. Thank you for your attention. I'm going to try to 

attend the workshop in downtown San Francisco on November 5th and I'm praying for peace. 

 

Respectfully, 

 

John H. Jennings 

Jennings Research & Editing 

2530 Hillegass Ave. #307 

Berkeley, CA 94704
140

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Tracey Sherry [tsherry@gnoyo.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:19 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 16:18 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Tracey Sherry 

Email: tsherry@gnoyo.org

Comments: CO2 pollution from power plants must be eliminated for the sake of future 

generations. Sustainable, non-fossil fuel power is our only hope. Our future depends upon the 

EPA's setting standards that will eliminate the financial viability of fossil fuel-based 

power generation. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
141

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gordon S. Bates [gsbates34@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:07 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 14:07 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Gordon S. Bates 

Email: gsbates34@yahoo.com

Comments: While I have not read all the details of the proposed regulations for new power 

plants, they appear to be reasonable and compelling, given the 

threats now virtually certain regarding green house gas emissions. I add my 

voice to those urging their implementation as soon as possilble. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
142

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Julie L Webster [websterjl@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 6:43 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 18:42 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Julie L Webster 

Email: websterjl@comcast.net

Comments: Dear Sir/Madame -- I support the most stringent carbon pollution standards 

possible. Health should always trump fiscal concerns. Without health, money has no purpose. 

Thank you for fighting for our health! Julie Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
143

From: Marilyn Ortt [marilynortt@suddenlink.net]

Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 9:50 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: reduction of carbon from fossil-fuel power plants

Since Congress is not acting on this vital matter, it is critical that USEPA proceed with carbon reduction standards.

Marilyn Ortt

701 Colegate Dr.

Marietta, OH 45750
144

From: bobbywego@gmail.com on behalf of Bobby Wengronowitz [robert.wengronowitz@bc.edu]

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:48 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input; Renahan, Kate

Subject: Carbon pollution standards for power plants

To whom it may concern, 

As a U.S. citizen, I have been ashamed of my country's inaction regarding anthropogenic global warming. 

Should EPA set strict standards on extant power plants and even stricter standards on future power plants, I 

might be less ashamed of our position on this most important area of global concern. I would like to have 

children, but am afraid to bring new life into a world that may not be hospitable to human civilization. With this 

email, I urge the EPA to take bold action regarding power plant carbon emissions. 

Sincerely, 

********************************** 

Robert J. Wengronowitz 

Boston College 

Sociology Doctoral Student 

robert.wengronowitz@bc.edu

********************************** 

410A McGuinn Hall 

140 Commonwealth Avenue 

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA 

**********************************
145

From: rshamel@juno.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:49 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Cc: susanshamel@gmail.com

Subject: Carbon Pollution Comments from Concerned NH Citizens

Dear EPA Administrators, 

 

I am Roger Shamel, a citizen of Hillsborough, NH. I have advanced degrees in Chemistry (from Ohio State U.) 

and in Business Administration (from Harvard U. I also run a chemical management consulting business. I'm 

also a veteran, a father and a grandfather. My wife, Susan, is a physical therapist, with a degree from Ohio 

State. We agree on the following. 

 

Please do all you can to control carbon pollution from power plants. These plants, as you know, contribute a 

large amount of CO2 to our atmosphere with the result that serious climate is already underway in the US and 

worldwide. Climate change is hard for many people to see or understand because it is a relatively complex 

scientific concept. This makes it easy for the fossil fuel-related businesses to keep the public confused, by 

giving money to front groups, politicians and PR firms who help them preserve the profitable status quo, and at 

our expense. As you also know, from the climate change information summarized at www.globalchange.gov, 

from the IPCC's ongoing reports, and from other sources, unmitigated climate change will have very serious 

consequences for all of humankind, not to mention the US citizens you are charged with protecting via a clean 

environment. It's time to do or die, so act! 

 

In summary, carbon pollution-based climate change is real, serious, and deadly. We need the US government, 

through the EPA, to put carbon pollution rules into effect--to protect the public. Even Adam Smith, the 

proverbial father of the free market system, realized that regulation was necessary in order to prevent businesses 

from running rampant over the public. 

 

Very truly yours, 

 

Roger E Shamel & 

Susan A Shamel 

262 E Washington Rd 

Hillsborough, NH 03244 
146

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Carolyn Dry [drycementmixer@aol.com]

Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:33 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 09/23/2013 - 06:32 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Carolyn Dry 

Email: drycementmixer@aol.com

Comments: I hope this increases the restrictions I live in MN under the emissions from 

Dairyland power in WISC and it has really affected my life. I look outside and if there is 

too much white stuff in the air I dont go out . 

I know that the ash is full of heavy metals and radioactive materials which I do not want in 

my lungs We in Winona MN could be a recreational area being on the Mississippi river BUT the 

air quality is bad and it affects everything especially my 71 year old energy level I do not 

give them the right to ruin my air Please please make them stop polluting my air and lungs. 

Yes I know that DIaryland settled a lawsuit for 500 million for polluting and had an offer to 

improve the air and it did get somewhat better but still white greyish air is not what I want 

to breathe thanks and I want standards for old power plants to be as high as for new ones WHy 

the difference? Carolyn Dry Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
147

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Michele [mmer_2000@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 9:26 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 09/22/2013 - 09:26 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Michele 

Email: mmer_2000@yahoo.com

Comments: Great news! This is long overdue, and is an important step in curbing greenhouse 

gases. Thanks! 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
148

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of JAIME P. IMBAT [jaimeimbat@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:13 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 23:12 

Submitted values are: 

Name: JAIME P. IMBAT 

Email: jaimeimbat@gmail.com

Comments: 

THE REAL TRUTH ( CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY) IN ORDER THAT COAL EMITS WHITE SMOKE INSTEAD OF SUPER 

BLACK INDUSTRIES ADD PULVERIZED LIME AT THE BOTTOM PART OF THE CHIMNEY (PULVERIZED LIME IS 

60% KEY COMPONENTS ON THE PRODUCTION OF CEMENT, IN BILLIONS OF METRIC TONS YEARLY) THUS 

MAKING OUR AIR HARD TO BREATH WITH OR ON WORST WE WILL BE CEMENTING OUR BLUE SKIES, SEE WHAT 

HAPPEN AT THE RUSSIAN INCIDENT LAST JAN 2013 THAT HILLS THOUSANDS, MORE ROCKS WILL BE POURING 

ON THE CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY (CCT) SMOKE EMITTED WILL BE PUMP UNDERGROUND, SMOKE CONFINED 

WILL FORM POISONOUS GAS WHEN LEAKS ( IN VOLCANOES OR EARTH CRACK) CAN KILL HUMAN BEINGS 

INSTANTLY, MORE DANGEROUS THAN CLIMATE CHANGE , A SIGNAL TO THE END OF THE WORLD. IT IS A 

MUST THAT WE MUST ABOLISH THE FUEL COAL, WE THE FUEL WITH EVERLASTING SUPPLY TO POWER ALL 

INDUSTRIES RUN BY COAL. THE FUEL EMITS NEUTRAL CO2 THE AGENDA IN ALL THE COOPERATION OF 

PARTIES UNITED NATION FRAMEWORK CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE ( COP-UNFCCC) Web Area: Carbon 

Pollution Standards 
149

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of JAIME P. IMBAT [jaimeimbat@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 10:51 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 22:50 

Submitted values are: 

Name: JAIME P. IMBAT 

Email: jaimeimbat@gmail.com

Comments: COAL MUST BE ABOLISH, IT EMITS 25 BILLION METRIC TONS CO2 YEARLY (SOURCE AWAKE) THE 

CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT NOW BEGINS TO RUIN OUR PLANET EARTH, WE HAVE THE FUEL TO REPLACE 

FUEL COAL WITH EVERLASTING SUPPLY. IT EMITS NEUTRAL CO2. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
150

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of John Olson [jf_olson@me.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:46 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 09:45 

Submitted values are: 

Name: John Olson 

Email: jf_olson@me.com

Comments: 

I would like to make a comment in favour of the proposed regulation of carbon emissions from 

new power plants, but the website which tells me how to do that (http://www2.epa.gov/carbonpollution-standards/how-comment-2013-proposed-carbon-pollution-standard-new-power-plants), 

doesn't work. First, I can't find the docket on regulations.gov. Second, you provide a link 

to "Carbon pollution standards" website (http://www2.epa.gov/node/39387), but that link takes 

me to a "page not found." 

I'd like to encourage my friends to comment as well, so I hope you'll get your system ready 

to actually receive comments. 

J 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
151

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of pascal molineaux [pmolineaux@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:04 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 09:03 

Submitted values are: 

Name: pascal molineaux 

Email: pmolineaux@gmail.com

Comments: Well done! It is the right thing to do, but now must be made compulsory on old 

coal-fired power plants too. Human-induced global cliamte change is too serious a matter to 

be dithering on such issues. The EPA MUST enforce stricter air quality standards and lead. 

THANKYOU! 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
152

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Pamela Walker [crispinwalker.pam@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:10 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 02:10 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Pamela Walker 

Email: crispinwalker.pam@gmail.com

Comments: I am 100% behind the President's efforts to lessen the impact of carbon pollution 

from power plants, even at a slight cost to our struggling economy. The healthcare costs that 

result from industrial pollution can be reigned in through legislation, just as fuel economy 

has lessened harmful emissions from cars. The health and purity of our air, water, soils, 

oceans and environment generally must take priority over profits. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
153

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:34 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 21:34 

Submitted values are: 

Name: 

Email: 

Comments: 

January 15, 2013 

 OILS WELL THAT ENDS IN A WELL 

re: Global Warming or Core of the Matter 

With all the talk about global warming and how we as man need to do somthing about it now, 

Well, I say yes, lets do something now. Although my "something" is a little different in 

approach as far as the regular 

procedure(s) we are asked to follow, that of which , dont seem to be working. 

So I would like to propose a different approach in handling this problem. I say to attack 

the problem at it's core then the one thing we need to do is "STOP PUMPING OIL". One may 

think this is an odd approach but let me give you a few reasons: 

Take into account that oil is a natural resource. Natural, yes...resource, no. By taking a 

look at the center (the core) of the earth, we can see that other than the sun this is the 

hottest area closest to man. Over 90% of the earth's core is liquid iron thus leaving the 

remaining10 percent solid. The liquid portion spins opposite that of it's solid part 

therefore giving the earth it's gravitational make-up. The earth is made up of the core 

(iron) the mantle, the crust and the surface. Throughout the entire earth there is or at 

least was many oil deposits. These deposits are at different depths, areas, under water, 

under land everywhere inside this ball of rock. We as the United States of America are not 

the only ones pumping the oil out. 

Every other country is also doing the same. Let me give you something to think about...The 

core of the earth is so extremeley hot that in order for the heat not to reach the surface of 

the earth, it has the mantle, which kind of works somewhat like a heat deflector or a 

porcelin-type shield. Although this is the case, the mantle does not. nor can it maintain 

this job itself. 

Now, this is where "oil" comes in to play. 

Oil, along with the mantle works as a natural insulator whereas, to provide a barrier to keep 

the internal heat from the core from reaching the surface of the earth. Compare hot spots on 

the surface of the earth along side areas known to have been drilled for oil. Even as 

science confirms the oceans are heating up. Science is telling us that ice-caps and glaciers 

are melting away more rapidly than at any other time we know of. This is due to global 

warming. No, it is not...If we were to take a look at footage of these massive rocks of ice, 

clearly we would see they are not melting, as an ice cube in the sun, but they are 
154

crumbling. They are crumbling becaause when the foundation of an object is weaker than that 

of which it supports most likely the object is going to crumble. This is not rocket science 

but simple common sense. 

Earth Quakes are another phenomenom man seems to be baffled by, when clearly we can see a 

contributing factor if we look a little more closely into the matter itself. Earthquakes 

seem to occur when an underground land mass shifts. Same, can be said under the ocean as 

well. Oil has been pumped out of the ground for nearly two-hundred years. Not in just one 

spot but all over the entire earth. Can we be expected to believe this has no effect or 

impact on the natural functions the earth has been doing since it's existance? Oil has been 

pumped out of the ground in several locations and at different depths inside the earth. The 

problem here is that we are taking out and not putting in. What is happening is that there 

are major empty oil veins and gapping holes throughout the entire earth. We can almost say 

the earth is collapsing in upon itself. The same goes for beneath our oceans... 

Lets take a look at the tsunami that struck indonesia, What happened: an 

earthquake several miles out to sea, under the ocean occurs. The ground opens up and water 

is sucked into this hole as the water is receeding from the shore. Once the hole is filled 

the pressure shoots the water back up at an alarming rate causing a massive Tsunami. One can 

say that we have always had natural disasters, always. I say, yes we have but not at the 

increasing frequencies nor the magnitude of such. 

Another problem taking this natural insulation from the ground is drought. 

We have become no closer nor further away from the sun so how is drought affecting the 

ground? Think, for a minute on a grander scale than what we are used to. Again, oil is a 

natural insulation and works along side the earths mantle in maintaining the internal 

temperature from the center of the earth. It keeps or helps to maintain such that it does 

not reach the surface of the earth. Due to the natural insulation thus being removed, the 

heat from the core is being allowed to reach closer to the surface of the earth and absorbing 

the moisture on the surface more so than ever before. Yes, the sun is the most powerful 

energy source and provides evaporation for clouds as well as other natural functions. 

However, because the heat from the core is reaching the surface more so than it has ever done 

the evaporation rate is less and the absorbtion rate is increased. This is a major off-set 

in the natural progression of the cycle. The evaporation rate is still performing. 

However, the absorbtion rate is now much quicker therefore the water is taken from the ground 

and absorbed only to dry up. In turn we see the surface of certain areas of the ground 

throughout the earth dried up arid and cracking. 

There are other aspects which also affect this on-going destructive behavior but this is just 

to name a few. 

Let's be real, You know as well as I do that oil is a commodity that man just seem's unable 

to do without. No matter what the consequences are for us as well as future generations, 

oil, seem's to be in every aspect and mostly every product produced by man. I highly doubt 

even to cut back on drilling would be something we are willing to do. Money plays to big of 

a role in this chapter of history and the powers that be would probably feel threatened by 

the idea of even suggesting such an absurd proposal. Unless we can come up with an 

alternative as well as a cleaner and more effeciant replacement, the irreversable damage 

will only increase until the global community realizes the impact is to great to ignore and 

start pointing fingers at each other and this eventually will lead to a fall-out and collapse 

of major institutions throughout the globe. 

This will be no easy task, but here is a temporary solution, but one of which will only slow 

down the onset of such disaster. If we take a look at all the fuel produced from oil, mostly 

gasoline, we could see that instead of producing the different octanes for particular 

vehicles we should limit the production to that of the lowest of the most common three: 91, 

89 and 87. 
155

instead of investing the time in producing the other octane as well as the cost of such, we 

could then invest in production of one grade of fuel along with research and developement 

going towards solid research to approach and/or solve the problem we face. 

In closing, let me say that the above is only a formed opinion by myself in which I am 

entitled to have. However if there is the smallest chance that any of this could in fact be 

true, then is not this worth taking a look into. 

 If we say we are all concerned about the future of the earth, well then what harm is 

there in researching because nothing else sees to be working...Everyone thinks everyone else 

is going to take care of the problem. 

What we fail to realize is we are the problem. The great news is that we 

can also be the solution...let's work together so hope can be spread to future generations of 

life as we now know it. When it comes down to it, this rock we call earth has been here far 

longer than any of us and it will remain far after we are gone. We must not fail to see that 

the earth also is a living, breathing life supporting object as well. The health of the 

earth is getting worse with time. Just like us either one of two things is going to 

happen...either it heals itself with all the help we can give or it heals itself naturally 

and eventually gets rid of what makes it ill, naturally...us 

Thank you, 

S.R. Leto 

Person of Opinion, inc. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
156

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of sam leto [samleto@att.net]

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:33 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 21:32 

Submitted values are: 

Name: sam leto 

Email: samleto@att.net 

Comments: 

January 15, 2013 

 OILS WELL THAT ENDS IN A WELL 

re: Global Warming or Core of the Matter 

With all the talk about global warming and how we as man need to do somthing about it now, 

Well, I say yes, lets do something now. Although my "something" is a little different in 

approach as far as the regular 

procedure(s) we are asked to follow, that of which , dont seem to be working. 

So I would like to propose a different approach in handling this problem. I say to attack 

the problem at it's core then the one thing we need to do is "STOP PUMPING OIL". One may 

think this is an odd approach but let me give you a few reasons: 

Take into account that oil is a natural resource. Natural, yes...resource, no. By taking a 

look at the center (the core) of the earth, we can see that other than the sun this is the 

hottest area closest to man. Over 90% of the earth's core is liquid iron thus leaving the 

remaining10 percent solid. The liquid portion spins opposite that of it's solid part 

therefore giving the earth it's gravitational make-up. The earth is made up of the core 

(iron) the mantle, the crust and the surface. Throughout the entire earth there is or at 

least was many oil deposits. These deposits are at different depths, areas, under water, 

under land everywhere inside this ball of rock. We as the United States of America are not 

the only ones pumping the oil out. 

Every other country is also doing the same. Let me give you something to think about...The 

core of the earth is so extremeley hot that in order for the heat not to reach the surface of 

the earth, it has the mantle, which kind of works somewhat like a heat deflector or a 

porcelin-type shield. Although this is the case, the mantle does not. nor can it maintain 

this job itself. 

Now, this is where "oil" comes in to play. 

Oil, along with the mantle works as a natural insulator whereas, to provide a barrier to keep 

the internal heat from the core from reaching the surface of the earth. Compare hot spots on 

the surface of the earth along side areas known to have been drilled for oil. Even as 

science confirms the oceans are heating up. Science is telling us that ice-caps and glaciers 

are melting away more rapidly than at any other time we know of. This is due to global 

warming. No, it is not...If we were to take a look at footage of these massive rocks of ice, 

clearly we would see they are not melting, as an ice cube in the sun, but they are 
157

crumbling. They are crumbling becaause when the foundation of an object is weaker than that 

of which it supports most likely the object is going to crumble. This is not rocket science 

but simple common sense. 

Earth Quakes are another phenomenom man seems to be baffled by, when clearly we can see a 

contributing factor if we look a little more closely into the matter itself. Earthquakes 

seem to occur when an underground land mass shifts. Same, can be said under the ocean as 

well. Oil has been pumped out of the ground for nearly two-hundred years. Not in just one 

spot but all over the entire earth. Can we be expected to believe this has no effect or 

impact on the natural functions the earth has been doing since it's existance? Oil has been 

pumped out of the ground in several locations and at different depths inside the earth. The 

problem here is that we are taking out and not putting in. What is happening is that there 

are major empty oil veins and gapping holes throughout the entire earth. We can almost say 

the earth is collapsing in upon itself. The same goes for beneath our oceans... 

Lets take a look at the tsunami that struck indonesia, What happened: an 

earthquake several miles out to sea, under the ocean occurs. The ground opens up and water 

is sucked into this hole as the water is receeding from the shore. Once the hole is filled 

the pressure shoots the water back up at an alarming rate causing a massive Tsunami. One can 

say that we have always had natural disasters, always. I say, yes we have but not at the 

increasing frequencies nor the magnitude of such. 

Another problem taking this natural insulation from the ground is drought. 

We have become no closer nor further away from the sun so how is drought affecting the 

ground? Think, for a minute on a grander scale than what we are used to. Again, oil is a 

natural insulation and works along side the earths mantle in maintaining the internal 

temperature from the center of the earth. It keeps or helps to maintain such that it does 

not reach the surface of the earth. Due to the natural insulation thus being removed, the 

heat from the core is being allowed to reach closer to the surface of the earth and absorbing 

the moisture on the surface more so than ever before. Yes, the sun is the most powerful 

energy source and provides evaporation for clouds as well as other natural functions. 

However, because the heat from the core is reaching the surface more so than it has ever done 

the evaporation rate is less and the absorbtion rate is increased. This is a major off-set 

in the natural progression of the cycle. The evaporation rate is still performing. 

However, the absorbtion rate is now much quicker therefore the water is taken from the ground 

and absorbed only to dry up. In turn we see the surface of certain areas of the ground 

throughout the earth dried up arid and cracking. 

There are other aspects which also affect this on-going destructive behavior but this is just 

to name a few. 

Let's be real, You know as well as I do that oil is a commodity that man just seem's unable 

to do without. No matter what the consequences are for us as well as future generations, 

oil, seem's to be in every aspect and mostly every product produced by man. I highly doubt 

even to cut back on drilling would be something we are willing to do. Money plays to big of 

a role in this chapter of history and the powers that be would probably feel threatened by 

the idea of even suggesting such an absurd proposal. Unless we can come up with an 

alternative as well as a cleaner and more effeciant replacement, the irreversable damage 

will only increase until the global community realizes the impact is to great to ignore and 

start pointing fingers at each other and this eventually will lead to a fall-out and collapse 

of major institutions throughout the globe. 

This will be no easy task, but here is a temporary solution, but one of which will only slow 

down the onset of such disaster. If we take a look at all the fuel produced from oil, mostly 

gasoline, we could see that instead of producing the different octanes for particular 

vehicles we should limit the production to that of the lowest of the most common three: 91, 

89 and 87. 
158

instead of investing the time in producing the other octane as well as the cost of such, we 

could then invest in production of one grade of fuel along with research and developement 

going towards solid research to approach and/or solve the problem we face. 

In closing, let me say that the above is only a formed opinion by myself in which I am 

entitled to have. However if there is the smallest chance that any of this could in fact be 

true, then is not this worth taking a look into. 

 If we say we are all concerned about the future of the earth, well then what harm is 

there in researching because nothing else sees to be working...Everyone thinks everyone else 

is going to take care of the problem. 

What we fail to realize is we are the problem. The great news is that we 

can also be the solution...let's work together so hope can be spread to future generations of 

life as we now know it. When it comes down to it, this rock we call earth has been here far 

longer than any of us and it will remain far after we are gone. We must not fail to see that 

the earth also is a living, breathing life supporting object as well. The health of the 

earth is getting worse with time. Just like us either one of two things is going to 

happen...either it heals itself with all the help we can give or it heals itself naturally 

and eventually gets rid of what makes it ill, naturally...us 

Thank you, 

S.R. Leto 

Person of Opinion, inc. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
159

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Pr. Dorothy Daniela Gioseffi [danielag333@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 6:40 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 18:39 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Pr. Dorothy Daniela Gioseffi 

Email: danielag333@gmail.com 

Comments: We are very pleased with the new carbon emission standards for new power plants. It 

is a good step in the proper direction to curb the horrors of extreme weather now upon us due 

to global warming. At the same time, we feel the president must move ahead faster and halt 

the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

If the FILTHY tar sands of Canada are burned, it is life over on our habitable planet. Also, 

his all of the above energy policy and his embrace of toxic and dangerous EarthQuake causing, 

water contaminating hydro-fracking is an insane policy. The methane from hydro-fracking more 

natural gas is as much a problem as carbon emissions. Natural gas is NOT cleaner. That is a 

myth that science has disproved. The study on the XL pipeline, moreover, is tainted by 

special interests, as have been the studies on the dangers of hydro-fracking condoned by the 

EPA. The proof is now in regarding contaminated waters and earthquakes due to hydro-fracking. 

Also sink holes are a danger due to melting of salt domes under the earth caused by huge 

injections and removal of tons of toxic waters in the process. PLEASE due all you can to halt 

hydrofracking and halt global warming and reduce carbon and methan emissions. We are thrilled 

with the 2013 proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants. An excellent step in 

the proper direction. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
160

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Andy Hinson [andyhi_99@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 6:01 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 18:01 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Andy Hinson 

Email: andyhi_99@yahoo.com 

Comments: I think this is one small step but a great move forward in the direction that is 

right for our nation and for the planetary system we all depend upon. It may even become a 

part of a cultural renewal for American society through sustainable growth instead of an 

unbridled environmental destructiveness due to greed that can only lead to more ad more of 

the same until the entire American economy becomes its own victim. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
161

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Theresa Waldron [b.jaybird@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:41 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 17:40 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Theresa Waldron 

Email: b.jaybird@yahoo.com 

Comments: What about the carbon emitted from current plants? Those are the polluters now. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards