Mercury pollution will make our state uncompetitive

In the June 1 story "State Looks to Reduce Mercury Hot Spots," state Sen. Mary Jo White -- prime sponsor of legislation that would stop the public process under way in Pennsylvania to reduce toxic mercury pollution -- said taking state action against mercury would cost our commonwealth and hurt our competitiveness. Just the opposite is true.

Forcing Pennsylvania ratepayers to continue writing checks to pay for upgrades at plants in other states means our facilities will become increasingly outdated and uncompetitive. Under "trading" provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, the Pennsylvania power plants have opted to buy credits to a far greater extent than power companies in any other state -- meaning that they have bought their way out of upgrading plants in Pennsylvania and instead had their ratepayers subsidize upgrades at out-of-state plants.

Moreover, under the federal rule that Sen. White supports, there are no guarantees that Pennsylvania will see any significant reduction in mercury emissions -- since power companies would be able to write a check rather than reduce pollution.

As we work so hard to keep young people here and attract new investment, our efforts are undermined as families and businesses understand that Pennsylvania is laden with more toxic mercury pollution than anywhere else in the United States except Texas. Clearly, our residents deserve better.

Here's a curious fact: At the same time that some legislators are battling the Department of Environmental Protection and working to stop our mercury regulations, they are -- in a different piece of legislation -- acknowledging how dangerous mercury is. Specifically, lawmakers are acting to stop the use of mercury in vaccines. But now, hearing the complaint of power companies that don't want to clean up their act, legislators essentially are saying, "Don't worry about mercury from power plants." That doesn't add up, and it's a bad deal for Pennsylvanians.

KATHLEEN A. McGINTY
Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Harrisburg

---

Ours don't 'get' it

In his article "Welcome to the Climate Crisis" (May 31), Bill Mc-Kibben asked how we can tell if our politicians "get" global warming. Based on their voting records, there is no indication that the four members of Congress from southwestern Pennsylvania "get" the seriousness of global warming. Nor are our two U.S. senators any more enlightened. Indeed, it was only a short time ago that Sen. Rick Santorum denied the existence of global warming.

One reason for this apparent lack of understanding may be the nature of our political system. With the two-year election cycle, it is the rare member of Congress who will dare to think a decade ahead. But the best of our scientists warn that action is needed right now. As Mr. McKibben points out, such needed action must be more than simple tweaking. A basic shift in political behavior is needed: shifting funding from new highways to public transit, seriously encouraging conservation, withstanding the pressure of lobbyists from Detroit and the coal industry, and moving away from the hoary dichotomy of "jobs vs. the environment." At the introduction of each piece of new legislation, the question should be posed automatically, "Will this legislation affect global warming, and if so, how?"

From some recent actions it is clear that Gov. Ed Rendell and DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty "get" global warming. Apparently the only way that our U.S. representatives and senators will "get" it is if we, the people, take time to tell them.

PETER J. WRAY
Churchill

The writer is a member of the Global Warming Action Team of the Sierra Club, Allegheny Group.

---

Work together

I'm sure the article about increasing support for the idea of a city-county merger ("City Merger Is Hot Topic for Leaders," June 5) will get many responses, and that most will be negative. Many will be from suburbanites horrified at the prospect of merging with a "failed" city that "adds nothing" to their lives or livelihood. And this is precisely the problem that a merger could solve.

This region isn't divided only by too many tiny governments but also by too many tiny minds: people looking with suspicion across municipal boundaries created more for taxing steel mills or by Revolutionary land grants than by any meaningful differences between places and people.

We need to stop competing with each other and learn that we're competing with every other city in the world. Perhaps if people in this county start to think of themselves as fellow citizens, we can start to work together to solve all of our problems. And that, more than any changes in tax rates or government policies, will create a more competitive region.

JASON ROTH
East Liberty

---

Not a fraud

In a June 5 letter, Matthew Maletestinic ("Call Social Security by Its Real Name: a Government Ponzi Scheme for Suckers") has compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme by way of criticizing the program. He focuses on the transfer payments -- the fact that older participants (retirees) are paid from the contributions of younger participants (workers). This is a false analogy in my view.

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud. The participant is promised large returns from his investment, but the operator skims off much of the money for himself while paying early "investors" from the contributions of later participants to create an illusion of ongoing successful economic activity. The scheme typically collapses when the operator absconds with his ill-gotten gains.

One may criticize Social Security, particularly as it has been implemented in recent years, but the mere use of transfer payments does not constitute a fraud or make it a Ponzi scheme.

STANLEY H. CHARAP
Mt. Lebanon

---

We have all these crises, and this is what Bush focuses on?

It is an absolute disgrace and a national embarrassment that President Bush is suddenly going to shill one more time for an amendment to the Constitution, making it a national issue whether same-sex marriage is allowed ("Bush Tells Senate to Ban Gay Marriage," June 6).

With hope fading fast that an all-out civil war of epic proportions can be averted in the war he unilaterally and pre-emptively started in Iraq and with the lives of thousands of American men and women in uniform on the line, he panders to the narrowest of special interests.

With the budget wildly out of control and deficit spending unchecked, he has time to tinker with the Constitution and subvert the rights of individual states to set their own standards on marriage. Facing a need to overcome serious and significant differences of opinion on the fate of more than 12 million immigrants in the United States, he has time to talk about his personal faith in heterosexuality.

What is Congress waiting for, an engraved invitation to start impeachment proceedings?

JOSEPH BUTE
Pine

---

The public should see all the evidence for an honest debate

In the June 2 commentary "For Fiscal Sanity in Upper St. Clair," Upper St. Clair school board Vice President Mark Trombetta responded to Dennis Roddy's piece about school officials interrogating students about their First Amendment activities ("Civics Lesson," May 28 Forum), claiming such actions were justified in the name of "fiscal restraint."

Apart from any logical connection between stifling public debate and being fiscally responsible, he also asserted that I personally "blessed" a "political activities policy" that the newly seated board majority attempted to pass in January. Dr. Trombetta's assertion is patently untrue.

On Jan. 16, the board had a "first reading" of the just-formulated policy. It contained blatantly unconstitutional restrictions on political activity, including a blanket prohibition on political speech by anyone on public school property without prior approval of the school board. I informed the district by letter dated Feb. 10, 2006, that the policy violated the Constitution and urged reconsideration. That exchange predated the board's first public discussion about eliminating Upper St. Clair's International Baccalaureate program on Feb. 13 and the 5-4 vote to abolish the program on Feb. 20. I was later told that the policy was amended, but I never saw, much less "blessed," any revision.

Dr. Trombetta, whom I've never met or spoken to, has for years attacked the American Civil Liberties Union and me personally. When the board majority decided to reinstate the IB program (the day before Dr. Trombetta was to answer questions, under oath, about the board's actions), he responded by filing ethics complaints against the lawyers representing the parents, including me, all of which were dismissed as meritless in less than a week. In settling the allegedly "nonsensical" lawsuit over the IB program, Dr. Trombetta and his colleagues not only agreed to reinstate IB for two years instead of the one requested by a parents group at the outset of the litigation, but also insisted that their e-mails and certain other documents revealing their motives be returned so as to limit public access to them. Now we can see why; it's a lot easier to twist the facts when the evidence is hidden.

If Dr. Trombetta wants an honest debate about IB and the parents' successful lawsuit, the board majority should agree to make public the documents uncovered by the lawsuit. But if I were in the board majority's shoes, I too wouldn't want the public to know the truth behind how and why they have conducted the public's business.

WITOLD J. WALCZAK
Legal Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania
Oakland

The writer is a resident of Upper St. Clair and has a daughter in the IB program.

---