Dear Editor:
RE: Carbon, competitiveness, Dec. 20.
In reading this recent open letter, I was struck by the superficial argument against a price on carbon, and puzzled by the lack of supporting information.
To offset that, here is an alternate view. Ecofiscal, a think tank based at McGill University and backed by such people as Preston Manning and Suncor CEO Steve Williams, suggests that, “Over time there is very strong reason to believe that carbon pricing is going to reduce GHG emissions and is going to do it in the lowest-cost way.”
According to the Brookings Institute, a not-for-profit think tank in Washington, D.C., “Looking for a public policy that would improve the operation of the economy, lower our dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, slow global warming and allow cuts in government spending … then a price on carbon is what you want.”
And William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, who just won the Nobel Prize for economics, suggest that the policy is simple. If you just commit to a price on usage of fuels that directly or indirectly release greenhouse gases …. people will see that there’s a big profit to be made from figuring out ways to supply energy where they can do it without incurring the carbon price. I think most of us will respond to a price on carbon pollution by looking for ways to reduce our carbon footprint and save money. And industry will accelerate clean energy innovation in order to fill a market and increase profits. And all not a moment too soon.
Climate change is already costing billions of dollars and hurting so many people – right here in Canada.
Peter van Vloten,
Fergus