Dear Editor,
I would like to reply to Stephen Hammond’s comments regarding the previous week’s thoughtful article about climate change and what we can do here in North Grenville. I agree wholeheartedly that we must engage our community to employ carbon-sequestering methods wherever possible. The wording “possible climate risks” does not feel quite right though. No – in view of the fact that we need to reduce emissions globally by 45% of 2010 levels, and do this by 2030 (11 short years from now), to cap warming at 1.5 degrees – I would call it “certain climate-related devastation.” The only way to even come close to achieving this dramatic reduction in emissions is through a price signal – where polluters are no longer allowed to pollute for free. Mr. Hammond’s “complicated Federal top down carbon tax” is that price signal, though it is not that complicated, in actual fact. It costs 10$ to pollute a tonne of carbon, that price gradually rises as the economy shifts toward green technology, and 90% of the revenue (I would prefer it be 100%) is returned to you to help offset the higher cost of carbon-intensive goods. This model, Carbon Fee and Dividend, is fiscally conservative, has the least amount of regulation, and can help ensure a liveable world. We can’t afford to be partisan about climate action – we need to work across party lines and take action now.
Sarah Tuck, volunteer with Citizens’ Climate Lobby
