To the editor:

On Sept. 16, the New York Times ran a front-page story about the closing of Hungary’s last remaining coal-fired power plant. This plant was one of the town of Oroszlany’s main employers and biggest taxpayers. Quite simply, the action was taken because of the European Union’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Another factor in the closure of the coal mine and its neighboring power plant was the growing realization that coal-fired plants are financially unsustainable, relying for their existence on hefty government subsidies.

The very next day, our hometown paper trumpeted the following front-page headline: “Coal plant permit expected this year.” There was no mention of the brave decision made in Hungary to close its last-remaining power plant. There was no mention in the article about the devastating health effects of the pollution that the new plant would produce. Neither was there any discussion in our local paper of the sources of public financial support that this plant will undoubtedly require. There was only glee about the fact that the remaining public comment period has apparently been reduced from 45 days to 30 days. Why is the reduced comment period so important? Because any new U.S. power plant approved after January 2, 2011, would have to adhere to stronger technological measures to control greenhouse gas emissions!

Americans claim to value our nation’s natural beauty, our citizens’ health and our citizens’ pocketbooks. These claims should be fully considered before rushing to a judgment that we are likely to long regret.

Jane and Lou Frydman,

Lawrence