The balancing act that Mark Riker calls for in his commentary about the potential effects of the I-1631 carbon fee initiative ignores the longer-range costs of climate change to the people of Washington (“Carbon tax measure could harm economy, families,” The Herald, Aug. 12).
Reducing climate change is the major goal of the proposed carbon fee and, yes, it will cost all of us a bit more. However, the future costs of allowing the climate to continue to change greatly outweighs the cost of the carbon fee. The carbon we can’t see in the air is warming our climate. The fires exacerbated by the changing climate add smoke that furthers pollutes the air.
The costs? The particles of smoke in the air have a direct effect on the health of all of us, not just those with asthma and heart disease. The cost for firefighting is busting the budgets of the western states, including Washington. Are we as a society ready to pay more and more to fight fires as well as the other long-term costs such as dealing with higher sea levels in Puget Sound?
We can pay a little now or pay much more later.
Deborah Davis Stewart
Seattle
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
