Is a tax on carbon how Canada can do its part in saving the Earth's climate without destroying our economy? Readers, print and digital, discuss the price of going green
....................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, the U.S.-China climate deal is a really, really, really big deal (Yes, This Is A Really, Really Big Deal – editorial, Nov. 13). Climate change is not just one of the greatest threats facing humanity, it is the greatest threat. With a carbon fee and dividend, we can have a carbon-reducing mechanism, plus more jobs. Since B.C. introduced its revenue-neutral carbon tax, its clean technology industry has been flourishing and emissions per capita are down sharply.
I have conservative values, but Stephen Harper's closed-minded approach to this issue does not resonate with these values. One hopes the China-U.S. emissions agreement will force him to do something.
Sharon Howarth, Toronto
.........
You ask – with a headline that echoes Kermit the Frog, who has been much on my mind lately, but more on that later – What If It Was Easy To Be Green? (editorial, Nov. 8). Well, so what if it isn't easy? It's better than the destruction unleashed by irreversible climate change.
As Barrie McKenna wrote, Norway has shown that with carbon taxes and investment in energy innovation, it is possible to find a balance between the environment and growth (Norway Proves Oil-Rich Countries Can Be Both Green And Prosperous – Report on Business, Nov. 10).
That's the kind of future I want for my four-year-old – instead of having her burst out in tears, sobbing because she heard someone on TV say frogs are dying off, and asking me: "Is Kermit going to die, mommy?" It's time we all embraced our inner Norwegian – even Stephen Harper.
Shawna Peters, Winnipeg
.........
If our country were the size of Vancouver Island, we'd have tremendous wealth, too. Fortunately for Canada, our economy extends beyond the oil and gas business. What's happening in Norway is not something for other countries to envy.
It's becoming a massive welfare state, with a sense of entitlement so entrenched, the next generation will lack any skill beyond this boom. It's a good thing they have a rainy-day fund.
Terry Halifax, Inuvik
.........
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels before the end of this century. That's 86 years from now, yet we're running around like the sky is falling? Canadian environmental groups fear mongering against pipelines, to hell with our family and friends who work in and live off the oil sands? The bottom line for me? As someone who cares deeply about our environment?
We have to be realistic. We have time to address this.
Ronald McIsaac, Saint John
.........
There is nothing wrong with a revenue-neutral carbon tax to encourage conservation and a shift from carbon-intensive to cleaner energy sources. The scale of the problem, however, is simply too large, on a planetary scale, for such a measure to have anything but a symbolic impact. That is Reality 101.
We need to find a way to burn fossil fuels with dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions, or to store intermittent clean energy on a very large scale, as we already do for hydro. Substantial investment in research is necessary, however, to learn how to store wind and solar energy, which are clean, plentiful and practically free. Governments have a role to play in spearheading such investments, as market forces alone can't do it.
Tony Manera, Ottawa
.........
Any proper discussion on carbon taxation would make clear the two major approaches – a tax on production (a poor choice), and one on consumption (a better but more complex choice). Both are fraught with unintended adverse consequences, especially in the hands of government officials. Furthermore, a carbon tax is also regressive in nature.
Kent Hawkins, Ajax, Ont.
.........
Now is the perfect time to introduce the carbon tax, while gas prices are low. I hope Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is listening.
Kenneth Brown, Toronto
.........
Your editorial on climate change should have been followed by another: "What if it wasn't necessary to be green?" Left-leaning politicos have spent a decade trying to persuade humanity we are rapidly working to destroy Earth. Climate science isn't settled; science of all kinds is never settled.
The activists and left-leaning political class are following their normal approach to dealing with opponents, including those who are opposed to carbon taxes or eliminating fossil fuels, painting them as stupid, evil, self-serving, uninformed or, worst of all, conservative.
Brian Sheedy, Toronto
.........
What If It Was Easy To Be Green? asks a question it does not answer. First, it sets up two supposed extreme opposites in the climate debate: those who want to destroy capitalism ("the far left") and those who want to deny global warming ("the far right"), along with the "liberal meddlers" who, like Naomi Klein, believe in government investment and regulations.
Having trashed the opposition, it lays out a typically comfortable Canadian compromise: carbon taxes. If you make people pay more to pollute, it is argued, they will stop polluting. The trouble with that is that some people, the wealthy, can afford to pollute, regardless of the taxes.
Others, caught in the distant suburbs we have designed with scant public transit, will have to fall further behind economically. So who is going to pay for that better public transit if not the government, i.e. the "taxpayer"?
There is no easy way to be green, as Naomi Klein is telling us. Sacrifice is necessary for us all.
Ken Klonsky, Vancouver
........................................................................................................................................................................
ON REFLECTION Letters to the editor
Her bruises, his issues
Kudos to Gary Mason for supporting the Canadian Centre for Men and Families, which helps men who've experienced sexual abuse and domestic violence (Abusers Diminish Legitimate Male Issues – Nov. 14).
He notes the fear that this initiative will be decried as diverting funds from women's resources. But these are exactly the issues that provoke violence against women, which is a male problem; its roots lie in the way boys are treated and socialized.
Recognizing this is where a safer future for women begins.
Judy Coldoff, psychologist, Toronto
.........
Values of feminism
I was dismayed to see that Gary Mason reported that the National Post's Barbara Kay had received "obscenity-laced hate mail … from feminists." Any woman (or man) truly committed to the values of feminism – equality for all, regardless of gender – would not engage in hateful, accusatory discourse.
I'd suggest the hate mail was the product of individuals purporting to be feminists.
Mr. Mason calls for an end to "gender polarization" and "negative stereotyping." Accepting that "feminists" sent the hate mail perpetuates that view.
Katie Almond, Toronto
.........
The Globe shouldn't have
Re Sins Of The Grandfather (Facts & Arguments, Nov. 13): The author blames the horrors of war for turning his grandfather into an abusive, alcoholic monster. He might very well have been a monster if he'd stayed home, too.
Why would The Globe and Mail choose to run such a piece, especially this week when we should be honouring the true heroes who have fought for our freedoms and those who continue to do so?
Bob Brehl, Mississauga
.........
The Globe should have
Congratulations to The Globe and Mail for its courage in publishing Sins Of The Grandfather in Facts & Arguments (Nov. 13).
It's been a long time since Canada experienced a war on its own territory. This essay reminds us of all the victims of wars who are often forgotten, including family members of servicemen and women who have to live with the consequences of active duty.
Julia Melnyk, Calgary