Monday, Dec. 21, 2020 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Bravo for your Dec. 14 editorial, “Pain of not addressing climate crisis far greater than cost of Nevada plan.” How can we even estimate the financial pain to residents of states where floods, hurricane damage and wildfires have caused mass evacuations and destruction of their homes and neighborhoods?
Here in Nevada, can we put a price on the physical, mental and financial impacts to people from ever-increasing temperatures and prolonged drought, which are disproportionately worse for poor communities? The consequences of extreme weather events have required billions of dollars in environmental and infrastructure repairs, and insurance reimbursements.
Insurance companies are raising their rates to compensate for this outlay. Besides the tangible costs, there are the intangibles of extreme distress, as people are forced to relocate when their home area becomes unlivable.
Experts agree that the best way to mitigate climate change is to place an ever-increasing price on carbon where it’s produced — well-heads, pipelines, mines, etc. This money would go into a trust fund and the net amount would be distributed annually to American households. This concept has thousands of supporters, including economists, former chairs of the Federal Reserve, faith communities, business groups, municipalities and more. Should strategies in the Nevada climate plan become actual programs, the carbon fee and dividend would serve as a catalyst to enhance their success.
It’s the dividend that will ease financial pain ass companies transition to renewable energy. That is the mitigating factor to address naysayers’ concerns that the Nevada plan would be hurtful.
