Dear Senator Johnson,
It has come to our attention that you voted in favor of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. While we applaud you for this vote to reduce sulfur emissions, it has come to our attention that this piece of legislation has proved ineffective. The Clean Air Interstate Rule has eliminated the gains of the U.S. Clean Air Act. We strongly urge you to help to right this terrible wrong.
It has been shown time and time again that acid rain is increasingly harmful to our environment and it is being caused by sulfur and nitrogen emissions. We have learned that nitrogen and sulfur emissions mix with water in the atmosphere to create acid rain. The acid rain then mixes into the soil and creates more problems. The acid neutralizes the minerals in the soil, such as calcium, causing fewer plants to grow. This then exacerbates the problem of global warming. When they are fewer plants to get rid of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and put oxygen back into the atmosphere, global warming accelerates.
Another thing that has been proven is the fact that ecosystems take years to recover from the effects of acid rain. It will take tens, if not hundreds, of years for the levels of soil nutrients to return to levels seen before the Industrial Revolution. However, it has been proven that, by reducing sulfur and nitrogen emissions, we can achieve results in returning ecosystems to a natural state. The Clean Air Act did do its job in reducing sulfur emissions by 67% and it allowed ecosystems to regenerate. But the Clean Air Interstate Rule has gotten rid of those gains and is threatening to return to our old ways of polluting the environment and causing acid rain.
And so, we scientists urge you to push for new legislation. We wish to see you get rid of the new Clean Air Interstate Rule and to reinstate the Clean Air Act. Why should we have gotten rid of something that worked so well? We urge you to be the spear point for reform. This needs to be a priority, not only for the sake of the human race, but also for the sake of the environment. We hope to be hearing, sometime in the near future, of new reform coming from Washington. We wish you luck on this endeavor.
Hopefully yours,
The scientists of the Brookings Institution.
Great job! It needs an introduction explaining who is writing the letter. This would establish who they are and why they are qualified to be presenting this information. I changed it to just one scientist composing the letter. I corrected some mistakes. I added and changed many sentences throughout the letter to make it flow better and make more sense. There are a lot of sentences starting with the same words, such as it and we. I’m also concerned about including the impact of acid rain on human health and the economic impact of acid rain, but my article and notes don’t have any information about this.
ReplyDelete