A few days ago, my grandfather, Calvin Frost, kindly forwarded an article from The New York Times, entitled, “Trump administration erases government’s power to fight climate change.” I will happily preclude his choice words that accompanied the email. 

The article laments Trump’s decision to rescind the “Endangerment Finding,” a rule that essentially underpins the EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants. This rescission will undoubtedly lead to endless debates about the effect of pollutants on climate change. Rather than indulging such unproductive conversations, we might take this as an opportunity to reflect on the philosophical reasons for such a rescission.

To The New York Times, this decision ends “the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet.” Implicit throughout the article is the idea that the federal government has a duty, and ought to have the power, to “protect” its citizens. What exactly constitutes “protection” is less than clear. 

As a nation founded upon Lockean principles, the United States is unique. The Bill of Rights affords US citizens freedoms from the federal government, rather than rights that must be provided by the federal government. As Locke tidily puts it, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” 

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect against any exceedingly tyrannical government. Happily, these rights are still deeply entrenched in our political and societal norms today. Yet, there is a tendency, as highlighted by the Times, to demand governmental protection.

Alas, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the protection predilection in his tome Democracy in America. Tocqueville, reflecting on his extensive travels through America in the 1830s, proposes that great republics have a tendency to move toward soft despotism. He outlines this form of despotism as thus:

“After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always believed that this sort of servitude, regulated, mild and peaceful, of which I have just done the portrait, could be combined better than we imagine with some of the external forms of liberty, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.”

Tocqueville’s definition at times feels too accurate to have been written almost 200 years ago. We find ourselves today surrounded by an exceedingly overbearing federal government, one that does not reflect the structural intent of the Founders. By unwinding various aspects of this overreach, we are setting ourselves along the path toward greater liberty and dignity.

The Times will have you think that the imposition of federal limitations is the only route toward a safe environment. This assumption throws skepticism and distrust upon the state and local governments across our nation. Can they not effectively debate, legislate, and enforce environmental questions themselves? Are they not the ones experiencing the effects of pollutants in their localities and best positioned to regulate them?

By rescinding the “Endangerment Clause,” Trump is shifting the onus for environmental protection back to the state and local level, defined and dictated by those who live and work in the affected communities. Such local governance is not foreign and already exists today in the realm of environmental protection. Just the other day, for example, the State of Wisconsin, wherein our manufacturing plant is located, levied a large fine against an aluminum coating manufacturer for exceeding state air emissions limits. I hope we might take this rescission as an opportunity to reengage with our state and local governments; such advocacy is oftentimes more effective and relevant.

In a liberal democracy, the ends rarely justify the means. While, like my grandfather, I care deeply about protecting the environment for ensuing generations, we ought not sacrifice our liberty to accomplish such ends. With the right engagement, I believe we can strive for a sustainable future without undermining the principles that have afforded this country such great prosperity.

Alex Hoffman is a third-generation family member at Channeled Resources Group, where he serves as Market Manager. Alex is currently pursuing his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In his spare time, he enjoys playing squash, reading, and arguing.