Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

letters

The E.P.A. and a Threat to Clean Air and Water

A reader decries a proposed rule that would limit the research used to determine environmental regulations. Also: Endless wars; electric scooters in New York; Elizabeth Warren’s corporate law experience.

Image
Contaminated waste water flowing from the Lee Mountain mine near Rimini, Mont., into a retention pond last year.Credit...Matthew Brown/Associated Press

To the Editor:

Re “E.P.A. Plans Limit on Evidence Used for Health Rules” (front page, Nov. 12):

I spent much of Friday studying a literature review on the effects of fine particulate matter on public health that cites the Harvard Six Cities study mentioned in your article.

Now I read that this enormous body of research that thousands of scientists have contributed to over five decades, research that I and others have spent countless hours studying so we can build on this monumental effort, might be entirely disregarded by the Environmental Protection Agency in future decision making.

Setting aside for a moment that the proposed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule is clearly a threat to evidence-based decision making, I find the idea of spending valuable time and resources on justifying efforts to weaken our nation’s environmental protections to be foolish at best.

Are we so shortsighted? Clean air and clean water are priceless resources that add immeasurable value to our nation’s natural heritage. Risking them for short-term profits is nothing short of a betrayal of the American people, and of our forebears who fought so that future generations could step outside just to enjoy the fresh air.

Olivia V. Sanderfoot
Seattle
The writer is a National Science Foundation graduate research fellow at the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington.

Image
Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. Polls show that a growing number of veterans have become disenchanted with the post-9/11 wars that continue in the Middle East.Credit...Al Drago for The New York Times

To the Editor:

‘Endless Wars’ Complaint Resounds for Veterans” (front page, Nov. 3) underscores the need for Congress to act meaningfully when it comes to foreign policy.

It’s a disgrace that more than half of veterans from the Iraq war feel that it was a mistake. But Congress’s failure to declare war contributes to veterans’ negative view of the last two decades of engagements in the Middle East.

Without a clear mission, how are our armed forces supposed to know when they accomplish it? President Trump has made an important step by moving our troops out of unnecessary conflict zones, but Congress must do its part and reclaim its Article 1 powers and actually vote on such action in the first place.

Warren Davidson
Troy, Ohio
The writer, a Republican who represents Ohio’s Eighth District in the House, is a former Army ranger.

Image
The scooter life in Hoboken, N.J.Credit...Bryan Anselm for The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “In Hoboken, Electric Scooters Are a Hit. Sometimes, a Curse” (news article, Nov. 7):

I trust that most pedestrians in Manhattan recognize the irony in the exclusion of our borough from the legalization of electric scooters. The legislation passed in Albany but not yet signed into law seems to recognize that electric scooters in Manhattan might spell trouble.

Well, if you have not noticed, legislation or not, the scooters are here in Manhattan — on sidewalks, in bike paths, on streets (with and against pedestrian and vehicular traffic) — adding to the already interesting challenges of being a pedestrian.

Do not kid yourself that these things are going away; there is a practical advantage, riding can be fun and you can bet that a large percentage of the riders will ignore both traffic laws and common sense.

Exhibit A: What percentage of bike riders do you see ignoring traffic lights, riding the wrong way in traffic, using, or not using, bike lanes at their discretion? And Exhibit B: How many times have you seen a police or traffic officer stop and ticket a bike rider for a traffic violation? I rest my case.

Charles Nash
New York

Image
Warren in 2006.Credit...Michele McDonald/The Boston Globe, via Getty Images

To the Editor:

Re “Populist Leader With History of Representing Big Business” (front page, “The Long Run” series, Oct. 29):

It is a foundation stone of our adversarial system of justice that even the most reprehensible criminals deserve vigorous and zealous representation. I have worked for three very large companies — Exxon, General Electric and Phillips Petroleum — and I understand their virtues and vices.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is a better lawyer than I am, and I believe that as a result of her experience representing large companies she has the same understanding of them. Because Senator Warren, as a lawyer, represented major companies does not mean that she endorses their wrongful behavior.

What her experience signals to me is that she understands how companies work to disenfranchise the economic rights of individuals and knowing that she can work effectively to restore the balance of economic power in this country while preserving the better features of capitalism.

To win against a powerful adversary you must understand your enemy.

Kenneth S. Wheelock
Pittsfield, Mass.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 26 of the National edition with the headline: A Threat to Clean Air. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT