Bipartisan support for carbon dividend

Are you concerned about global warming? If you are, then you are like most people in the U.S. The Carbon Dividends Plan put forth by the Climate Leadership Council has majority support across party lines — including 4-1 support overall, 2-1 support from Republican voters and 75 percent support from Republicans under 40. This was from a recent survey by Luntz Global, a traditionally Republican polling firm.

The basic concept is from economists, who believe that putting a price on carbon offers a faster, less expensive and more business-friendly way to reduce emissions than government regulations. Their plan would not be a tax — the money would be returned directly to individuals on an equal basis, so that they could use it how they felt best to offset increased prices of fuel or make investments that would reduce their carbon use. This would unleash the power of American innovation.

What can you do? You can ask your members of both houses of congress to support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, H.R. 763, which would assign a cost-based price to carbon, collect the fees from producers and return all the dividends to us directly to spend how we see fit.

Jeffrey Jones


Climate claims fall flat

My kudos go to Matthew Gagnon whose column in the BDN on Thursday, Sept. 26, clearly states one reason that I am a staunch denier of the so-called climate scientist predictions. I am 80 years old and have lived through every one of these dire predictions mentioned in the column.

One of the most important tests of any scientific theory is its ability to predict happenings based on the theory. Every one of these predictions made have failed. To me, that means the theory is faulty.

Another reason to doubt these climate scientists is that they seem to depend on consensus as evidence. Consensus is in no way a part of scientific inquiry. Evidence in real science are actual measurements made with accurate instruments with great precision.

As far as I know, carbon dioxide is heavier than air and would therefore sink to the earth and not become a part of greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide can be used up as fast as it is produced by blades of grass, bushes, trees and by every plant on earth. Yet it is the one thing we hear the most that is causing climate change. These same plants replenish the oxygen we need to breath. So let’s debunk these claims and let our youth know they have nothing to fear about life on earth.

I wish our media would report all of the data, not just what supports faulty theories.

Climate has always changed over time and always will. No man can do anything to change that fact. What we must do is adjust to those changes and go on.

Howard Cutler


A climate crisis is happening

On Thursday, Sept. 26 an OpEd was published by Matthew Gagnon where he placed doubt on current climate science by identifying examples of some past climate predictions which never happened. If all of us had a dime for every economic forecast, or political science poll or sports prediction that didn’t happen in the past we would all be rich.

In today’s potpourri of journalism, there is sometimes a tendency to use false equivalencies. The practice of comparing one item to another that in fact should not be. Gagnon’s comparison of a few dire predictions made years ago to today’s climate science is a disservice to his readers.

What is important today is to recognize today’s climate and weather trends plus current scientific consensus — all of which leads to the recognition that there is a crisis happening which will require action.

In business and other disciplines, you make decisions based on the best and most current information available. To not do so is a path to certain trouble. Even if the current climate consensus were to be proved wrong, what are the worst consequences? Those that doubt current climate science will say there will be an economic disaster. Now that is a premise that is worth debunking — if not for ourselves, than for our children and their children.

Peter Reilly