I’m writing this letter in response to a letter to the editor written by Senator John Barrasso that appeared in the Washington Post on January 23, 2020.
You have free articles remaining.
We know climate change abatement will be inconvenient and costly, and the longer we stall (50 years already) before taking any meaningful action, the more painful it will be.
There are thousands of examples of how climate change is impacting our world and lives. We need to think about what our world will look like in 10, 20, 50 years, and what that means to our descendants. I see no rational reason(s) for environmental-conservation reversals to combat climate change as suggested by the senator. I have no issues with environmental regulations. I would like to see an America where atmospheric carbon and temperature levels are falling, and our energy sources are renewable and sustainable. I don’t see an expansion of nuclear energy in our future, contrary to the senator.
No one action is going to solve our climate change dilemma; it will take a multifaceted approach and years of concerted effort. One piece of legislation that should be part of the solution is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. Among other things, the act puts a carbon fee on fossil fuels. The money collected from the carbon fees is allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. Economists around the world agree that a carbon fee is the simplest, most effective way to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way. The senator doesn’t care for fees. The energy innovation component will stimulate research and technology, create jobs and stimulate the economy. A carbon fee will work, we just need to make the commitment to get it done. Americans and their descendants will see a much better outlook for their environment and climate as more than adequate return on climate change abatement investment.