The PDN letter (Aug. 26, 2018) “Reject carbon tax” opposes the I-1631 carbon tax initiative because climate computer models are complex and have been inaccurate.
The writer is correct that the models are complex and have been inaccurate, but the models have been inaccurate in the wrong direction for humans.
Read 2018 PDN and Seattle Times: PDN Jan. 9, 2018, “Low oxygen levels, coral bleaching getting worse” and “Bill for 2017 weather events tallied at record $306 billion”; Feb, 2, 2018, “Satellites show warming speeds sea rise”; Seattle Times, June 14, 2018, “Antarctica’s ice is melting 3 times faster than in 2007”; June 14, 2018, “Not just heat: Climate-change signs can be seen all around.”
Also read April 2018 Scientific American article “Meltdown; The Arctic Climate is Shattering Record After Record, Altering Weather Worldwide,” pg. 48-53.
These articles indicate that what models where predicting to happen 50 to 100 years from now are beginning to happen now.
I’m voting for I-1631.
If we keep kicking the climate change response can down the road, we may make it impossible for future generations to survive on Earth.
I believe paying more for burning fossil fuel now is a small price to pay to help curb our CO2 output.
Do we really want to saddle future generations with what may be draconian, possibly futile, measures in an attempt to survive on Earth?
When are we going to start curbing CO2 emissions?
If not now, when? Is our approach to exterminate most, if not all, humans to achieve CO2 reduction?
Think about it.
Bob Vreeland,
Port Angeles