- Bill limits automated license plate readers
- Private uni’s subject to FOIA says House
- Guest Commentary: Earth Day or April Fools Day?
- State Roundup: Concerns raised about proposed change in DUI pot standard
- Bill would decrease pot penalties; small amounts would draw only ticket, fine
- Senate votes to restore human service cuts; bill moves to House for consideration
- Bill to restrict red light cameras passes House
- State Roundup: Budget fix in current FY not yet done
- State Roundup: GOMB Director won’t support borrowing
- Economists: pros, cons to raising the state fuel tax
The Carbon Solution
Editor’s note: The following letter is in response to the July 30-Aug. 5 “Meet John Doe” column “Climate change is not global warming, and neither are hoaxes, part two,” by Paul Gorski.
The July 30 editorial, “Climate change is not global warming, part two,” says that reducing carbon emissions would not have to cost money and could create new jobs. That’s true.
A recent REMI economic report says a revenue-neutral carbon fee can create 2.8 million new net jobs and add $75-$80 billion annually to GDP by 2025.
A carbon pollution fee paid by fossil fuels and return, 100 percent, to every American in a monthly rebate check would let the market, not government, create the transition to a clean-energy economy. Increase the fee annually, and people would use their carbon rebate money to buy cheaper clean energy. Most people, especially lower-income and middle-class Americans, would come out ahead, or at least break even, with the monthly rebate. The Citizens Climate Lobby website has more details.
In British Columbia, this plan has dramatically reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and their economy has thrived. Most economists across the political spectrum, including eight Nobel winners, support it.
The same carbon pollution fee on imports from countries like China would force them to cut their emissions to compete economically. This fee would also be rebated monthly, in its entirety, to all Americans, making U.S. products more affordable.
Most importantly, we’d avoid the ruinous future costs of climate disaster projected in the Risky Business report.
This is a solution to climate change that will improve our economy, if we act quickly enough.
From tlhe Aug. 20-26, 2014, issue