Topic: carbon tax
You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
December 4, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Federal carbon tax is the solution
Everyday the media is reporting global warming symptoms (caused by CO2 pollution from burning fossil fuels) more and more frequently: drought, fires, floods, ocean acidification, insect pests moving north destroying forests and bringing tropical diseases [“Arctic Ocean leaking methane at alarming rate, researchers say,” Online, Nov. 30].
Perhaps we are complacent in the Northwest. We don’t see the symptoms as so dangerous to us, as if they are manageable. And the cause, the gases, are invisible to us.
But now comes this news from the Arctic. Methane is being released at twice the predicted rate as the permafrost and ice is melting. Methane is the most dangerous of all the greenhouse gases. It’s 30 to 70 times as damaging as CO2. This will profoundly escalate all the problems for our ecosystems.
November 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Social safety net won’t last forever
Our nation faces many threats to its future. One of them is climate change [“Can sea life adapt to souring oceans? page one, Nov. 3].
A huge, whopping carbon tax is probably the only feasible way for the government to influence the market and bring about a change in behavior and products to address climate change.
Another threat is the failure of our social safety net in the short term.
Social Security is the only retirement savings that more than half of us have. How devastating to the economy will it be to have 80 to 90 million of us living in poverty, on $1,200 a month plus food stamps, minus our Medicare premiums? And to be too old to do any meaningful physical work? Can you live that way?
Republicans offer cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and say no to a carbon tax. This is a slow snowball of a crisis that will crush our nation if not addressed in a meaningful way.
Will our public debt be as crushing? And for whom? I don’t own any Treasury bills, but I will collect Social Security. If I live through the crop failures, storms and forest fires.
This is not the time to reach a balanced compromise with deniers of science and math.
Robert Reed, Seattle
September 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Carbon tax is a good solution
Boy, do we need some congressional attention to climate change. [“Special report: Sea Change,” seattletimes.com, Sept. 13.]
The House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is actually holding a hearing on Sept. 18.
However, the title is, “The Obama Administration’s Climate Change Policies and Activities.” Since many House members have been critical of President Obama’s intention to use the Environmental Protection Agency to bypass a neglectful Congress, it looks like this hearing could turn into another negative exercise, instead of a serious look at the critical, urgent matter of responding to carbon dioxide emissions increases.
What if, instead of attacking the president’s plan, the hearing focused on the science and on solutions that might provide an alternative to regulations?
I’m guessing many of the conservatives and former presidential advisers who favor a carbon tax are itching to be invited. A carbon tax that gives revenue back to the taxpayer is a truly conservative, market-based approach.
Distributing the carbon-tax revenue back to the public would give consumers the additional income to deal with the price increases that would result from companies paying this tax. Making the carbon tax revenue-neutral aligns with the Republican principle of keeping the federal government from growing larger.
Let’s not just sit back and see what happens at the hearing. Let’s urge our representatives to broaden the agenda of their climate-change hearing to focus on science and solutions.
Mary Davies, Seattle
July 11, 2013 at 7:28 PM
China will get its coal somewhere
The letters that I read in The Times bearing on the subject of coal trains advance the proposition that not exporting coal to China will have a positive effect on stemming global warming. [“Northwest Voices: Coal terminals and air pollution,” Opinion, July 10.]
This is naive. If the United States does not ship coal to China, China will, of course, buy it from someone else. This would have zero effect on global warming, and have a negative effect on our fragile economy.
Victor Matous, Shoreline
Carbon taxes should go both ways
As The Economist so succinctly stated, “the world will one day adopt a carbon tax — but only after exhausting all the alternatives.”
It occurs to me that such a tax needs to cut two ways, taxing carbon combustion while issuing credits for “biocarbon solutions.” [“Guest column: Biocarbon solutions for the climate,” Opinion, July 10.]
If taxes would be market-based incentives to find ways to reduce carbon combustion, then tax credits could certainly be market-based incentives to develop new ways to capture and use atmospheric carbon.
Thomas Dyer, Seattle
Trending with readers