英语作文环保的书信格式的

帮帮忙啦！不要忽悠人！

Dear Mr.Smith,
Last year, you ask our institute to survey environmental protection of our city. After half a year of investigation, the results come out. There are still many problems of environmental protection in recent years. One of the most serious problems is the serious pollution of air, water and soil. The polluted air does great harm to people’s health. The polluted water causes diseases and death. What is more, vegetation had been greatly reduced with the rapid growth of modern cities.
To protect the environment, the government must take even more concrete measures. First, it should let people fully realize the importance of environmental protection through education. Second, much more efforts should be made to put the population planning policy into practice, because more people means more people means more pollution. Finally, those who destroy the environment intentionally should be severely punished. We should let them know that destroying environment means destroying mankind themselves.

Sincerely yours,
Mike

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138 Carson City, Nevada 89706-0851 January 25, 2001 Carl Gertz Environmental Management U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 98518 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518 Re: DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) Audit of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), Low-Level Radioactive Waste Certification Program - Audit No. RWAP-A-01-04 Dear Mr. Gertz: The U.S. Department of Energy -- Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) has received a request from the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) in New York State to be approved as an offsite waste generator eligible to dispose of Low Level Radioactive waste (LLW) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) received notification that an on-site audit has been scheduled by DOE/NV to evaluate a specific low level waste stream at the WVDP for compliance with the Nevada Test Site's Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC). Upon receiving this notification, NDEP raised verbal concerns about the appropriateness of a decision by DOE/NV to accept the WVDP wastes for disposal as LLW at the NTS. Based on a further review of the WV site history regarding both the origin and ownership of the WVDP waste streams, NDEP's position is that the waste would be classified as commercial waste and need to be disposed of as such. The State of Nevada concluded its obligation under the commercial LLW compact system for disposal of commercial LLW with closure of the Beatty commercial LLW site in 1992. Now it appears that DOE is moving toward accepting commercial LLW for disposal at the NTS. While NDEP does acknowledge DOE's self regulating authority, under the Atomic Energy Act for the management and disposal of "defense" LLW, the same cannot be said for commercial LLW. These wastes are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its delegates, and DOE can not, through its own initiative, change the regulatory status of a waste. NDEP is requesting that DOE provide the basis for the determination that the WVDP LLW streams are acceptable to be considered for disposal at the NTS. It is noted that the "West Valley Demonstration Project Act" gives DOE specific authority for demonstrating solidification techniques for high level waste and allows DOE to dispose of LLW in accordance with the applicable licensing requirements. What licensing requirements does DOE assert are applicable to the referenced waste streams? With respect to origin, are these LLW streams generated from activities associated with nuclear weapons production or DOE energy research activities associated with the treatment of commercial high level waste? In terms of ownership, the Act does not authorize the transfer of title of the WVDP waste to the DOE. Given this consideration, under what authority will DOE accept the LLW streams being considered for disposal at the NTS? NDEP is aware that DOE and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority have developed an EIS that evaluates alternatives for cleanup and disposition of radioactive wastes at the West Valley site. Has a "Record of Decision" been issued for this EIS and has DOE adhered to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Tiering requirements (40 CFR 1508.28) regarding the NEPA decision making process for the referenced LLW streams? Questions regarding any matter addressed in this letter may be addressed to John Walker at (775) 687-4670 ext. 3027, or me at ext. 3039. Sincerely, Paul J. Liebendorfer, P.E. Chief Bureau of Federal Facilities PJL/KKB/JW/nap cc: Allen Biaggi, NDEP Administrator Robert R. Loux, NWPO K. Beckley, NDEP, Carson City, NV M.D. McKinnon, NDEP, Las Vegas, NV Stan Marshal, Health Division 第二封： Renewables winning the energy raceBuzz up! Digg it The Guardian, Wednesday 16 September 2009 Article historyIf I am travelling down an "irrational" road to renewables, as Richard Phillips implies (Letters, 11 September), then I am not alone. Last year, solar PV generation capacity grew by 70% around the world, wind power by 29% and solar hot water increased by 15%. By 2008, renewables represented more than 50% of total added generation capacity in both the US and Europe, ie more new renewables capacity was installed than new capacity for gas, coal, oil, and nuclear combined; with no emissions, no wastes and no security issues to worry about – and no worries about fuel running out, or increasing in price. It's true the energy available from some renewable sources, like wind, varies over time, but we already have to have backup capacity for other plants (including for nuclear plants), which is also used to deal with the daily energy demand peaks. With variable renewables on the grid, these backup plants have to be used a bit more often, adding a small extra cost and, if they are fossil-fuelled, reducing the amount of emissions saved very slightly. But hydro can also be used as backup, and increasingly, so can other types of non-variable renewable source, including biomass and geothermal energy. If we to have a large amount of nuclear on the grid and the planned large wind-power input, then during low-energy demand periods – particularly at night in summer – we will have more electricity than needed, and one or other will have to give way. Since the output from nuclear plants cannot be varied easily and regularly without economic and operational penalties, we would have to curtail the wind output. How rational is that? Professor David Elliott The Open University