3 days ago
Climate Change, Regulation and Health
To the Editor:
In 'How Trump E.P.A. Is Giving Up Role of U.S. Protector' (front page, Aug. 4), about the recent E.P.A. reversal of its previous finding that climate change is endangering the American people, David Gelles and Maxine Joselow note the longstanding debate over the proper role of government in regulating dangers.
Adam Smith, they remind us, argued that 'governments should play a limited role.' But a limited role in what? Smith contrasted the benefits of the emerging system of capitalism with the mercantilist system that it was soon to replace, but even he recognized that governments sometimes had to get involved.
Regulations were warranted, he wrote in 'The Wealth of Nations,' when the 'natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical.'
Smith was referring specifically to banking regulation, but his argument was not sui generis. He compared banking regulation to the requirements for firewalls, which had been mandated in London under the Fires Prevention Act of 1774, just two years before Smith wrote his classic work.
Worsened wildfires are, of course, one of the many costly consequences of man-made climate change. Today, the liberty of fossil fuel companies is endangering the security of us all. Adam Smith would have seen the need to regulate them.
Naomi OreskesCambridge, writer is a professor of the history of science and an affiliated professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard. She is also an author, with Erik M. Conway, of 'The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market.'
To the Editor:
Re 'E.P.A. to Retract Bedrock Finding on Climate Crisis' (front page, July 30):
The Trump administration's proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is a threat to people's health across the country. The endangerment finding affirms, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, that emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change while worsening air pollution and harming health.
With this proposal, the E.P.A. is essentially turning its back on decades of scientific consensus and putting polluters ahead of the health of children, seniors and communities.
As the American Lung Association hears frequently from nurses, physicians and patients experiencing them firsthand, climate change has profound effects on respiratory health, including heightened risks of asthma attacks, worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and premature death.
Make no mistake: This decision will immediately affect the health of every American, especially those who are most vulnerable to air pollution, including children, older adults and pregnant women. We urge the E.P.A. not to move forward with this harmful action and to instead prioritize the health and well-being of all communities.
Laura Kate BenderFairfax, writer is the vice president for nationwide advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association.
Hiding Unfavorable Jobs Data
To the Editor:
Re 'Trump Pick for Agency on Job Data Stirs Alarm' (Business, Aug. 13), about the selection of E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation:
I was struck by this quote from Preston Caldwell, an economist, in the article: 'First impressions here, this guy has an extreme degree of partisan motivation, which affects how he interprets the facts. But I do not think he's fundamentally dishonest.'
If President Trump and his appointments have shown anything, it is their blind loyalty and willingness to, if not lie outright, at least fudge at every opportunity.
One of Mr. Antoni's first comments was that maybe these employment figures do not have to be published every month. If the figures were favorable, they would be published by this administration every day. Only unfavorable stats would go unpublished. Is hiding the facts a lie or a fudge? Does it matter as long as we no longer trust the government at all?
Stephen T. SchreiberPrinceton, N.J.
To the Editor:
President Trump has named a new head for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I imagine the job application had a single question: How much is two plus two? The winning answer: Whatever you want it to be, Mr. President.
Robert S. CarrollStaten Island
