Letter: The Adam Smug Institute should apply itself to smog
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I MUST TAKE the Adam Smug Institute to task for suggesting that privatising pavements is the last and greatest opportunity in the unfinished revolution of the free market ('What can they privatise next?', 20 December, your scoop of the week in the form of a controversial letter to the esteemed Secretary of State for Transport, John MacGregor).
I think the institute is forgetting the matter of 'air'. Even this marvellous body is guilty of imagining 'air' is something that is simply there. Air is a by-product of a modern industrial society. The present quality of air differs according to location and a whole range of other factors, including car exhaust emissions, a rapidly expanding road network, industrial wastage and spillage, smoking, and so on.
Considerable employment could be generated, with offices situated in areas of highest unemployment, with the establishment of companies concerned with 'air' quality and control. Naturally they would be governed, as with pavements, and much else, by a regulatory authority.
People will pay for good wholesome 'air'. Indeed there is a basic inequality at present, for why should rural communities benefit so much? A pay system would see justifiable charges above the norm for country people who have so benefited at the expense of city and industrial folk (who create most of the wealth and consumer goods).
I think the Adam Smug Institute will agree that Private Ownership of air is infinitely preferable to the present lack of controls exhibited by a seeming free-for-all public ownership.
Tony Jasper
London NW6
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments