E to the n, yo.

I received en email from Energy Nation earlier this week urging me to take action against the new Environmental Protection Agency ozone standards. Doing a quick search shows they aren’t the only ones upset at the proposed legislation – and it’s possible they’re justifiably concerned. My point, though, isn’t to get into that. Instead, I want to gripe about their approach.

The aforementioned email linked through to this page where you can write the President an email. As is typical with this sort of thing, they suggest wording they think best supports their agenda. My problem is they completely ignore the EPA’s arguments. There’s no mention of why the EPA wants to change their standards, much less how these claimed benefits are outweighed by the alleged cons. How can I, much less the President, take the email seriously when it appears so ignorant of anything but its own agenda? You must break down the arguments of your opponent. It’s debate 101.

Taking it a step further, I really would have liked to see them propose ways to accomplish the same (or similar) goals sought by the EPA without the negative impacts. This more constructive, clearly, but also respectful of and sympathetic to the responsibilities and biases of the Oval Office.

In the end, I still didn’t want to pass up the opportunity to “take action,” so I sent in a modified email, the body of which read: “I read the EPA is considering upping their ozone standards – and that this threatens millions of jobs in the energy sector. Given the fragility of the economy and continuing unemployment issues, I urge you to consider alternative means to improve air quality.” I’m sure the President is reading it right … now!

This article was edited after publication by the author on 04 Aug 2011. View changes.