NEWS & PUBLICATIONS

Forum: The Clean Air Challenge
   The article on air pollution in the November/December 2002 issue was very timely. As part of a vacation to southern Utah in October, I visited the north rim of the Grand Canyon. In spite of good weather, the haze in the air was very apparent. This was especially true at long distances. The Painted Desert to the east and the San Francisco Peaks to the south were barely visible. As the day wore on, the pall hanging over the canyon to the West grew worse. Details of the main canyon area and the south rim were only moderately discernible. For a national treasure this is just not acceptable.
   A visit to the Grand Canyon should have the clearest views possible from either rim. The current administration made a promise that this would happen. With the changes coming in Congress, NPCA and other groups will have to exert more pressure towards that end. The so-called "Clear Skies Initiative" just won't do it. Visitors to our national parks deserve an honest commitment to clean air.
Kirby Nelson
Woodland Hills, CA

   In "The Clear Air Challenge" the author avoids taking action against the major source of air pollution affecting people—
petroleum-burning vehicles. Like Joy Oakes in her Dirty Air Stresses Trees, People he says nothing about how to reduce polluting gases from cars and trucks. Both authors have lots of fine words about how "we must do more . . . ," but no plan for reducing petroleum pollutants.
   We believe we have a workable plan. We ask environmentalists leaders such as NPCA leaders, to write their congress persons. Ask congress to impose a 10-cent-per-gallon impost on imported petroleum products. A 10-cents/gallon impost would add little to the price of American fuel compared to Europe where gasoline costs about $4 a gallon.
   The monies from the impost should be used to improve our railroad system (50 percent), and for greenways (50 percent). Some of the greenway money would go to National Park System greenways. It is time for Americans to stop pussy footing about the cause of air pollution, and take steps to curb it by raising the price of petroleum; and then use the funds to develop less polluting and wasteful forms of transportation.
Cy A Adler
via e-mail

Great Smoky Woes
   It was rather sad to see the context of the five mentions of Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the November/December 2002 issue. The first mention of the park was in an editorial regarding the park's loss of Fraser firs (p.5), then on the Code Red list (p.10) as being the most polluted park, next in a truly sad article about people who don't understand the food chain (p.11), in Sen. Jeffords article on air quality (p.16), and finally, the article on tree loss (p.18-22). How sad that this park, among the country's most visited, is suffering so. While some of the problems needing solutions occur inside the boundaries, issues like air quality originate outside the park. What will it take before the public truly understands what is at stake here? The U.S.'s "gift" to the rest of the world is in serious trouble. This much-loved park needs serious assistance in order to retain the beauty that draws people to it.
Dale D. Powers
Knoxville, TN

Motorized Vehicles
   To me it seems strange that opponents to motor vehicles in our national parks do not point out the unfairness of these vehicles running free, when any other sports have to pay for the use of the facilities used, through fees or taxes. Think of golf, baseball, tennis, skiing, basketball, etc. Indoor sports require a governmental building for their use. Just because someone owns a motorized vehicle he thinks he can go anywhere, no matter what the facilities or conditions are.
   Additionally, businesspeople fight restrictions, using the argument that jobs and local businesses will suffer. What about those industries like atom bomb making, or poisonous gas manufacturing? These industries had employees and towns where these people lived. We all agree that these industries needed to be terminated, and no one argued about lost jobs. What about towns were buggies were made? We all want a better world, and motorized vehicles are bad enough on the roads, who needs them everywhere?
Chester P. Soling
Tucson, AZ

National Parks
   I just finished reading my first issue of National Parks magazine. As I read, I became confused as to the true purpose of the publication. An underlying message frequently came through, exposing an agenda that is not evident on the magazine's cover. The good in the magazine was overshadowed by the constant putdown of the president of this great country. I believe the national parks' agenda is ill served by using the magazine as a campaign medium for the Democrat party, and I refuse to be brainwashed by your liberal agenda.
Gerald Suddreth
via e-mail