LTE Draft—drpaleontology

 

To the Editor:

Re: “White House to Relax Energy Efficiency Rules for Lightbulbs” Published Sep 4

As a student who studies the earth sciences and climatology, I was shocked to read this article. Our planet is currently fighting one of its largest battles in the last 65 million years. As a species we have pushed our world into the sixth mass extinction event in all recorded life ever. Every effort to be done to counteract this event should be taken no matter how miniscule it may seem. The Trump administration, however, is handling this crisis as poorly as I hope we will ever see. This recent publication mentions how they are taking more actions as simple as using more efficient light bulbs and getting rid of them for cheaper, more environmentally unfriendly light bulbs. Laws have been set for years dating back before the Obama administration to lessen the use of bulbs such as the over-a-century year old incandescents. If lights were all replaced with the more energy efficient LEDs, it would equate to the use of “25 large power plants, enough to power all homes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania”. As a child growing up I always looked up to the president and the White House as our countries leaders. If we cannot start there in introducing cleaner energy, where will that bring us in the future? As a society, regardless as to what the Trump Administration does to weaken environmental policies, we must do all we can to protect the world around us, not only for our lives, but of our children and grandchildren. In the following election I hope we all can make the right decision and pick a leader who will help save what is left to save here on Planet Earth.

 

Gallery | This entry was posted in drpaleontology, LTE Draft. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to LTE Draft—drpaleontology

  1. davidbdale says:

    Just one comment to get you started on revisions. You say in your first sentence: “As a student who studies the earth sciences and climatology, I was shocked to read this article.”

    A perfectly reasonable reaction. But to what? And what was your reaction?

    Imagine you’re a reader of the newspaper who DID NOT read the original article? What will your first sentence communicate? And will such a reader continue to read your letter if the first sentence means nothing?

    What if:

    As a student of the earth sciences and climatology, I was appalled to read that the Trump administration plans to return us to the era of energy-wasting incandescent bulbs just to appease a few rabid “less government is good government” fanatics.

    That may be a mis-characterization of your actual attitude, but do you see how thoroughly it describes the content of the original AND your objection to it? Give it a try, and then make every sentence that follows it just as effective.

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    You’ll receive no feedback, no grade, and no further comments until you break this post into paragraphs, drpaleontology. Each should contain one main idea. Cover as many of the 10 Essential Components as you can.

    I removed your human name from the post because including them made having a username to protect your identity pointless.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s