LETTERS: Friday, November 19, 1999

World-wide problemWorld-wide problemTo the Editor: Jessica Hulse Engineering '01 Missing the point To the Editor: Mark Fiore's assertion that the annual emissions of certain important pollutants have been declining in America is correct. All this means, however, is that our air is getting poisonous at a slower rate than that at which it had before the regulations of the 1970s were implemented. The important thing to realize is that our air is still becoming more and more toxic and carcinogenic every year. Additionally, while Fiore's statistics about the availability of land in America are undoubtedly accurate, they are totally irrelevant to the environmental well being of our nation. The important question is not how much American land is still available for exploitation, but how many Americans could the land sustain over long periods of time. Could Americans support their standard of living for long without massive inputs of natural resources from less-developed countries? What would happen if the citizens of these countries attained an American-style standard of living? These are the pertinent questions that I would love to see Fiore answer in the next edition of "The Right Stuff." Michael Stier College '03 Large impact To the Editor: Mark Fiore states that since metropolitan areas comprise only 2 percent of the nation's land, and developed areas only 5 percent, we need not worry about protecting natural resources. But metropolitan areas are not the only regions polluting the country. Logging, agribusiness-farming and suburban sprawl are activities which take place in rural areas but clearly contribute to the destruction of the environment. In addition, the area a factory pollutes is several magnitudes greater than the area it occupies: Toxic chemicals dissolved in air and moving water spread expansively. Fiore continues on, stating that environmentalists threaten creativity, thereby stifling the economy. Having regulations does not stifle creativity; it won't prevent someone from coming up with an idea. What it will and should do is just weed out ideas which destroy the environment more than they do good. Samantha Gaw Engineering '02 Misleading statistics To the Editor: Mark Fiore writes that "[t]here is three times as much forested land in the U.S. today as there was in 1920" -- not bothering to note that this calculation is based on the inclusion of Alaska into the Union in 1959. He also cites statistics stating that air and water quality in the U.S. has improved since 1970. In this case, he fails to point out that these improvements are the result of tougher government standards for automobile and industrial emissions, the inclusion of catalytic converters in cars, the coming into being of unleaded gasoline and various other regulations enacted under laws pushed through Congress by environmental thinkers not unlike those Fiore maligns. Chris Bordelon College '03 Ford less than saintly To the Editor: I'd like to point out that Mark Fiore's representation of Ford Motor Co. as an environmentally sound and angelic corporation is rather erroneous. Sure, Ford might be making improvements, but maybe they're doing so to make up for their 1997 violation of the Clean Air Act. The company ended up settling a resulting lawsuit for $6.5 million. Jean Kim College '00 Street grammar To the Editor: I'm glad that Penn has an alternative student-produced weekly publication like 34th Street; every university should. The magazine promotes a different perspective on student life than that of the newspaper. And Street generally does a good job; nothing is sacred in its pages. Unfortunately, that holds true for grammar and spelling as well as subject matter. I found it rather amusing that Scubbin' ("I Penn InTouch Myself," 34th Street, 11/18/99), which commented on the atrocious misspellings in the Spring Course Register, was followed by an equally pathetically-proofed article directly below it. "Classes We Need?," might have been mildly amusing, if only it weren't proofread so poorly. Whatever the Street decides to comment on should be fair game; that's what an alternative publication is for. But at the very least Street should do itself and its readers the justice of proofreading articles before they go to print. Mayumi Hirtzel Program Assistant Office of College Houses and Academic Services