Thank you. My name is Diane Schrack. I live in Highlands Ranch, Colorado and I'm 

concerned that the EPA's proposal under President Obama's Clean Power Plan is 

not strong enough to address the climate crisis that we are facing today and in 

the future. 

Carl Sagan said, "...anything else you are interested in is not going to happen if 

you cannot breathe the air and drink the water. You are by accident of fate alive 

at an absolutely critical moment in the history of our planet." 

Carl Sagan said that a few decades ago. The climate changes we are experiencing 

right now didn't just happen. We've been spewing greenhouse gases and carbon 

dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began. We are facing 

the consequences of that today. And that is a fact. 

The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION agency is in an extremely important position 

right now to make real, substantial change to U.S. environmental policy. Climate 

change is the single most important issue facing us today — an issue with social, 

economic, political and environmental parameters — here and worldwide. Your 

current proposal is nice and it gives the impression of effective change; but it 

needs to be based on relevant evidence and science. We don't have time to play 

politics and deal with influence peddling from partisan positioning - , 

fuel-i-ftetti-stry. yyw vi-efcci 

The solution needs to fit the scale of the problem. Your proposal to cut carbon 

pollution is based on 2005 levels. 2005 was close to the peak year of U.S. carbon 

pollution. So your baseline is already skewed toward the highest level of carbon. 

Your EPA fact sheet states that the "proposal will maintain an affordable, reliable 

energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health now and for 

future generations. In reality, this is just not true. A healthy, sustainable future 

cannot afford the amount of carbon your plan allows for -- it's not possible. 

In fact, your information sheet says climate and weather disasters in 2012 cost 

the American economy more than $100 Billion. Carbon extraction processes and 

its pollution bring us drought, wildfires, floods, contaminated air and water, 

debilitating human health issues, ocean acidification, melting glaciers and 
earthquakes -- all very costly consequences that never seem to be recognized in 

macro-scale economic analyses. 

The carbon pollution that you are addressing is already creating sea level rise that 

impacts human and animal migration; and food and water shortages that 

promote violent conflicts among people around the world who are just trying to 

survive. 

When you're talking about environmental protection- you're talking about 

responsibility to others. We(1,:t igroreLthat reality any longer. There is a time 

and place for regulation. 4FI'vis43--thaftime. And please bear in mind your 

regulations will set the floor, and establish the very least companies can do to 

keep in regulatory compliance. Carbon should be taxed for the social and 

environmental harm that it creates. 

The EPA needs to bring about a massive shift beyond fossil fuels. You should not 

be promoting nuclear power or natural gas production. Both are harmful and we 

can't affor= d the "doing less of a harmful thing" anymore. Our future lies in 

conservation, energy efficiency and proven carbon-free renewable energy. We've 

got the technology. We've got the workers. We need the EPA to stand up and 

help make it possible for us to get there. 

Your proposal is not enough. The EPA needs to go back to the drawing board and 

quickly come up with a plan that adequately addresses the actual impact of U.S. 

carbon emissions on our planet aii€1-stand-tii4e4ebEF-e_nvir-eflfil°ental protoction. 

And then please get back to us, as you are so graciously doing today, so we can 

weigh in on a policy that affects the sustainability of our very lives-- not just here 

in Colorado but around the world, as well. 

Thank you.