Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Where's the urgency on climate change? [Letter]

Global ChangeEcosystemsConservationLobbying

Letter writer Taylor Smith-Hams rightly points out the need for a price on carbon to fight climate change: By making fossil fuels more expensive than renewable energy, the market phases them out ("Carbon fee is best climate change option," May 11). But where would that tax money go?

Eight Nobel economists and the Harvard economist who co-wrote the latest IPCC report support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, paid by fossil fuels directly to consumers, not the government. Consumers will have that tax money to protect them during the transition period. They don't take an economic hit, and neither does the economy. The Citizens Climate Lobby website has the details of this economic plan.

When they scale up, solar and wind will be cheaper than fossil fuels are now. Their storage and intermittence problems have been solved and they are already becoming competitive with fossil fuels even though their subsidies have been eliminated while massive, unnecessary multibillion dollar annual fossil fuel subsidies continue.

The cost of not acting quickly and decisively on this is steep. The IEA says just five more years of postponing climate action will cost about $5 trillion. We've already paid over $1 trillion for climate change disasters. Isn't it about time to do something?

Pete Kuntz, Northglenn, Colo.

-
To respond to this letter, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Global ChangeEcosystemsConservationLobbying
Comments
Loading