I am here to voice my support for the proposed EPA carbon limits. I am someone who enjoys all things 

outdoors, I hunt and fish, hike, bike, and bird watch. All these things that I enjoy are at risk unless we 

adopt new limits on carbon emissions. 

There have been a lot of things said about climate change in the past 20 years, and a lot of time and 

money has been spent in trying to convince the public that there is no crisis, there are only Chicken Little 

environmentalists crying the sky is falling. I did a little research into those in the denying camp and 

found out something very interesting, the men and tactics involved in climate change denial were the 

same men and tactics used in defending the tobacco industry, denying acid rain, and denying CFC ozone 

depletion. William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz, and Fred Singer have been in the fore when it comes to 

denial, creating doubts where none should exist, and cynically repeating things that are demonstrably 

false. Apparently in their worldview, any regulation of any industry is unnecessary and smacks of 

socialism. In my worldview, regulations are necessary for one very good reason, regulations that are 

enforced work, and work well, and industry has repeatedly shown that it prefers to continue polluting 

till forced to stop. Isaiah Berlin said it well, "Freedom for wolves has often meant death to the sheep." 

It would seem that these regulations would be anything but controversial. The opponents of climate 

change have done their work well, our nation leads the world in climate change ignorance, and they 

have succeeded in politicizing the debate to the point where I can reliably tell which side of the aisle a 

politician is from by his belief, or disbelief, in climate change. We need to get past this partisan nonsense 

and do something now, not later, and I fear that we, as a nation, have allowed vested interests to 

continue down an unsustainable path for far too long as they benefit from a "debate" on climate change 

they manufactured and nurtured . 

. The economic argument is one that is trotted out every time an environmental regulation is proposed. 

In most cases, the economic impact has been negligible or non-existent. Tailpipe emissions, banning 

CFCs, these were going to cripple the economy! They didn't, and these regulations won't either. We 

can't ignore the costs we already are paying for climate change, increased food costs caused by more 

severe weather, and the cost associated with weather related disaster relief. To complain about 

potential costs from proposed regulations while ignoring already occurring costs is disingenuous. 

No one is happy about someone losing their job, but to over simplify these regulations as a war on coal 

is wrong. Instead of being proactive and developing new technology to make coal truly "clean", the 

industry has chosen to do very little in this regard, preferring public relations campaigns to research and 

development. If the product you provide is polluting the planet isn't it commonsense to think that the 

regulation of the pollutant is in the best interests of the citizenry? The right of a corporation to make a 

profit doesn't supersede the right of the populace to have a healthy environment. Many believe that we 

can have both a healthy economy and a healthy environment, they are not mutually exclusive. American 

ingenuity is unparalleled, we can solve the problem of carbon pollution, we can stop global climate 

change, but we need to act now, and these commonsense regulations are a step in the right direction. 

David A I mgrund 

Carlisle Pennsylvania