My Letter to Ed.

[Skip Dooley]

I am writing a letter to the editor of The Mountaineer Progress. The local paper in my hometown, Wrightwood, CA.(Mountain High)

Let me know what you guys think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To whom it may concern,

Many residents of Wrightwood, and it’s surrounding areas, find comfort and beauty in the outdoors. Many of us ski or snowboard at Mountain High, and many of our small businesses are supported, in large, by patrons on their way to enjoy our snowy mountains and fresh air.

As the November election draws near, the environment seems to be a top issue for Wrightwood locals. The environment is arguably the backbone of the community. This is why the general tone of ambiguity in the community is cause for concern.

I hope that the residents of Wrightwood know that the current federal environmental guidelines, “The Clear Skies Initiative”, are in fact, a series of air quality restriction rollbacks. These rollbacks allow factories and other mass polluters to release an amount of pollutants into our air higher than the guidelines setup previous to President George W. Bush. Some of these pollutants allowed include Carbon Dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses. These gasses cause global warming, and severely diminish snowfall(LA Times). The “Clear Skies Initiative” is political spin, a positive name meant to distract from truly devastating legislature. How devastating? These environmental rollbacks cause diminishing snowfall. California relies upon the runoff from melting snow for it’s water. A diminished snowpack does not provide much water, and causes drought.

Wrightwood residents have witnessed trucks bringing water to this small community over the last few summers. We have the power to prevent this from happening in the future. We need to educate ourselves about the candidates in the upcoming election.

Often mainstream media such as CNN or FoxNews stand to gain by presenting one-sided, subjective, information; Often, independent news organizations prove to be more objective. The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk, The Independent, www.independent.org, the British Broadcasting Corporation, www.bbc.co.uk, and the National Resource Defense Council, www.nrdc.org are all reliable, independent, news resources. The BBC, British Broadcasting Company also runs television and radio networks under the BBC name.

I hope that everyone will take a few minutes to find out what they stand for, and who they support. Or rather who supports them. If you don’t find out what you believe in, and go vote for it, you will find yourself living in the country of someone else who did.

-------------------------------------------

[Will]

Note: What the hell do I know? But you asked for comments, so here are my opinions:

Overall it's good, but try and tighten up the writing a bit. In particular, paragraph three is too wordy. Cut those long sentences down into smaller chunks. Newspaper writing tends to be short and punchy. Editors are looking for letters that clearly state a certain belief or position; get in, state your position and get out.
Also, I didn’t fact check a damn thing; I assume you’re not making shit up.

- Kill the second to last paragraph, the one about media. It just makes you seem like a partisan hack. You may be right about them being more objective, but that's an argument for another time. Just encourage people to seek information about their community and the world from (something like) 'a wide variety of sources'.

- You don't really need the footnote for the LA Times. It's the only one in the letter and it just jumps out at the reader. If you must mention the LAT then say something like, "The LA Times has reported that...”
It also isn't too clear what fact you're sourcing. (That greenhouse gases cause global warming and reduced snow pack? For that sort of thing you should be citing a scientific body or something, not a newspaper.)

- Finally, and this is more about content than style. It sort of seems like you're saying:
1) Clear Skies allows more pollutants in the air.
2) The pollutants cause global warming and reduced snowfall.
3) The water shortages we have seen recently are the result of the clear skies program.
I don't think you can really make that final conclusion. Correct me if I'm full of it, but I think that while many people believe that the extra pollutants released as a result of the CSI will affect the environment in the future, they have not done so yet. We'll have to wait to see the consequences.
Instead, you could try and argue:
1) Pollutants cause global warming.
2) Global warming causes draught and diminished snow pack, what we’re seeing now is the result of past pollution.
3) The Clear Skies initiative allows more pollutants into the air, which in the future will result in more low snow years and increased chance of drought.

[FNG]

Perhaps you could find a more reputable source than the LA Times about the green-house gasses. The information may be correct, but it would hold water better if it was from the National Society for Scientific Widgets and Booze Hounds (NSWBH) or something.