Advertisement
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 6 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Environment
Public Policy In C&EN
April 12, 2010
| A version of this story appeared in
Volume 88, Issue 15
I was pleased to see Rudy Baum's response to members who think he should not use the editorial page for anything except "matters concerning chemistry" (C&EN, Feb. 1, page 4). Topics such as pollution leading to anthropogenic climate change are most certainly "matters concerning chemistry."
The debate over proposed policy to deal with these issues badly needs informed commentary like Baum's. For example, I could barely contain my strong urge to send him a big "Bravo!" on the editorial advocating a carbon tax instead of the much more bureaucratically burdened cap-and-trade system being debated. Almost every economist will point out that such a tax is much more efficient and can be applied and managed with fewer unintended consequences. It is definitely the way to go, if only it were politically palatable.
I am pleased to see it advocated from a source representing chemistry and the chemical industry. Although it is not likely that we will actually get a carbon tax rather than cap-and-trade, whatever chance there is will be enhanced by pieces such as Baum's editorial. Keep it up!
William M. Riggs
Biddeford, Maine
With respect to editorials concerning politics and policy, membership in the community of scientists does not relieve us of membership in the community of humankind. Wherever our society can advance the cause of human well-being, it should do so, even if it offends some people.
Mark Williams
Sparks, Md.
Thanks for Baum's thoughtful discussion of why C&EN should include public policy issues that are of critical importance to the chemical industry. It matters not if some of us don't believe in climate change. If those who shape public policy believe in it, then their policies will have a direct impact on the chemical industry. Those who would rather not discuss policy matters are opting out of an opportunity to engage in the debate and shape the outcome. These issues won't just go away, so it is best we are informed of them. I very much appreciate C&EN's reporting on these matters.
Stephen Loughin
Plymouth Meeting, Pa.
Advertisement
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to get more articles. Or choose the ACS option that’s right for you.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter