The United Nations climate summit in Madrid unfortunately ended in frustration ("Blame all around at U.N. climate talks," Dec. 16). But while the world leaders may not be able to agree on what to do next to head off the worst effects of climate change, we here in the U.S. can still take action.
The most effective first step is to put a price on carbon. There are several such proposals in Congress already, the one with the most support being HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA). In simple terms, the government would collect a fee on all sources of CO2 pollution (oil, gas and coal), and give that money back to individual households as a dividend. The higher price of polluting fuels pushes all of us to conserve and fosters investment in innovative alternatives. The dividend eases the transition to cleaner energy sources for people who can least afford it, and that money will actually improve the economy.
Economists at Columbia University's prestigious Center on Global Energy Policy recently assessed the EICDA and found that it will reduce U.S. carbon emissions to Paris Agreement levels, decrease air pollution and have a positive financial impact on the majority of citizens and the overall economy. In January, a group of more than 3,500 U.S. economists of all stripes — liberal, conservative, Republican and Democrat — issued a call for climate action and recommended a carbon tax and dividend strategy to drive down carbon use and "encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development." The EICDA alone will not be enough to stem climate change, but it's the policy with the best chance of gaining bipartisan support and is an excellent first step.
Since we can't count on international "leadership" to lead the way, we need to apply pressure from the grass roots. Urge your representatives at all levels to support a national carbon fee and dividend. We can't wait for the next climate summit.
Cathy Ruther, St. Paul
• • •
I was very excited to read the Star Tribune Editorial Board's headline "Walz takes charge on climate change" (Dec. 12).
Disappointment set in by the first paragraph. It said Walz issued an executive order that "will continue pushing this state toward emission reduction goals set more than a decade ago under a Republican governor."
So "taking charge" of climate damage means we now are going to try to meet targets that we set 10 years ago? That's like "taking charge" of the Titanic by bailing it out with a mayonnaise jar.
Nowhere in the piece does the Editorial Board mention the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline. According to the environmental impact statement, that project would add $287 billion in climate damage worldwide over three decades. That's damage from more severe storms and droughts, agricultural losses, health impacts and more.