Opinion

Letters to the editor

Readers write in about protectionism and climate change.

Protectionism hurts

David Francis asks, “Would a touch of protectionism do the United States some good?”. He answers in the affirmative. He points approvingly to President Obama’s new tariffs on Chinese tire imports beginning at 35 percent. Of course, that action is a transparent payoff to a political constituency: organized labor. 

Never mind that it raises the price of tires to American consumers by 35 percent and shields an inefficient domestic tire industry from healthy foreign competition. It’s a tax, paid for by American importers, which kills the incentive to purchase Chinese tires. It also kills jobs in China held by young people who have left communes in rural China and traveled hundreds of miles in search of work to help their families. Many fathers at home on the farm in China, I imagine, will worry about their sons and daughters finding jobs in the city as tire factories lay off workers.

Mr. Francis goes on to flip another “solution.” He cites a recent suggestion: “The US should start buying Chinese yuan on the foreign exchange markets.... That would push up the price of Chinese goods.” Indeed, it would. This would leave the Fed with balances in Chinese banks and leave us with billions of newly printed dollars surging through our domestic markets, causing inflation. The American consumer would take it on the chin again.

Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?

Bill Tennyson

Seattle

Mental climate change first

Regarding the article “Green building grows and grows": I am sure that the green building standards of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) are an estimable checklist of sensible measures such as reducing air infiltration, beefing up insulation, and installing energy-efficient water heaters.

Unfortunately, I suspect that they fail to sufficiently emphasize some of the most effective measures for creating sustainable housing. Composting privies, cob walls, direct solar water-heating, graywater reuse, and passive solar designs all offer substantial efficiencies. 

The American lifestyle is far from truly sustainable. Reaching it will require substantial change on many levels, both the short- to medium-term that the NAHB and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards address, and the long-term changes noted above.

Fundamental change can only succeed at the grass roots. Many people are now persuaded that humans are causing the lion’s share of climate change. Yet many of these people still hire someone to use a gasoline-powered mower and leaf blower to maintain their front yard. They will discard Halloween pumpkins as yard waste. Before we can change the climate, we have to change our minds.

Muriel Strand

Sacramento, Calif.

– –

Send comments about issues and topics in this publication to us by clicking here. Or send an old fashioned letter to: Readers Write, 210 Massachusetts Ave., Boston, MA 02115. 

Letters are subject to editing and may appear in our weekly print edition or online. Please include the headline of the article, your full name, address, and telephone number for verification purposes. 

You can also find us on Facebook.

Share this story:

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...