I keep hoping that the manufactured debate about human causes of climate change is over. However, after reading Gerald Miller’s letter to the editor “The Marxist-Progressive Church of Climate Change” (July 10, Redmond Reporter), I am again reminded that it is not.
Mr. Miller argues that climate scientists lack any credibility as a result of the 2009 “Climate Gate” scandal over leaked emails. The claim that these emails showed collusion among climate scientists to manipulate or suppress data to show that carbon emissions are causing climate change has been thoroughly debunked by numerous independent inquiries.
It’s not clear what Mr. Miller believes motivates climate scientists, as he says they see climate change as a “political cause” and then maintains they just want more funding to “further their own career.” As opposed to Mr. Miller’s rather contradictory conspiracy theory, climate scientists are doing just what they are supposed to do: Convey to the public that their studies show the Earth is already warming, and will continue to get warmer, due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Mr. Miller is flat wrong when he says “there is no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous or not.” More than 93 percent of climate scientists believe that the burning of fossil fuels is driving climate change and that if carbon emissions continue unabated, climate change will seriously, if not catastrophically, disrupt ecosystems and human society around the world. Would Mr. Miller not seek treatment if he had health symptoms that nine out of ten doctors agreed were from a serious, if not fatal, disease?
Although Mr. Miller believes that most climate scientists are closet Marxists that are merely trying to redistribute wealth, he would be surprised that many would agree with him regarding market-based measures that can effectively reduce carbon emissions and allow renewable energy sources to be more competitive.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax is one such measure that prices fossil-fuels more realistically to account for environmental and social costs and returns the revenue to the people to offset the increased cost of energy. British Columbia has had such a tax for seven years, reducing carbon emissions by 10 percent while maintaining economic growth slightly ahead of the rest of Canada. Here in Washington, Initiative-732 (currently gathering signatures) would tax carbon and offset the cost to consumers and businesses with lower sales and B&O taxes. Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) proposes national legislation for a carbon fee and dividend, where the carbon fees are returned directly to the people as a dividend. CCL’s proposal would reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels, add 2.8 million jobs, and save more than 200,000 lives over 20 years.
If he wants a market-based approach to cleaner energy, I suggest that Mr. Miller write his members of Congress supporting the CCL carbon fee and dividend proposal and help us out collecting signatures for I-732, rather than continue a false debate created and perpetuated by the fossil-fuel industry.
David Chapin
Redmond
