Bear Encounter
Dear Editor: Thanks so very much to the fellows at Silver Bay Seafoods, who tried to alert me to the presence of a bear yesterday morning. I was approaching on my bike and ended up braking for that bear, as he ran right in front of me and across the road. Many thanks also to the gallant Al Stevens and the others, who jumped in their trucks to get between me and the bruin. Your quick actions and kindness were much appreciated.
Most sincerely,
Kim Hunter, Sitka
Election Thanks
Dear Editor: I want to take a moment and thank Sitka for providing me an excellent month of campaigning. Although I didn’t get elected, I did gain a perspective that I found invaluable, we are strong. Sitka has endured many unknowns, from the hospital to the dam. I cannot say enough how beautiful this town is, that goes for the scenery as well.
Keep striving, Sitka, attend the Assembly meetings, rally for your causes and make your voice heard. Again, September was a month to remember. I am going to continue to work for what I believe in, Sitka is one of them.
My best goes to Valorie and Kevin, and our new Mayor Mr. Paxton. To Brinnen and Sheila: It was a good run.
Take care and God bless.
Blossom J. Twitchell, Sitka
Off-Leash on SJ Campus
Dear Editor: Dogs off leash at Sitka Fine Arts Camp will be found to be exuberantly rolling in new manure in the gardens and lawn to acquire those all-too-wonderful all-natural applied coatings that all dogs identify with as “ah, this is heaven.”
Gail E. Ferris, Sitka
UN Climate Report
Dear Editor: This report is a BIG DEAL. It was written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an “objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.” No political agenda, simply a scientific report from 90 of the most knowledgeable, respected, up-to-date scientists on the planet. The report is the most current and comprehensive effort to understand our problem and guide our response.
The major findings of this report have to do with the urgency of the need to act. Previous to this report, a goal of holding post-industrial warming to 2 degrees Celsius was widely held as a threshold that if not surpassed might avoid human, environmental, and economic suffering that would widely be viewed as unacceptable. A threshold like this can only be approximated. And what are acceptable levels of suffering? But what this report gives us, based on a global effort to understand the science, is the understanding that previous assumptions were too optimistic. It offers a grim assessment of the impacts we can expect with greater than 1.5 degree warming (we are already half way there). It is a loud call for rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented response to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses.
I agonize how this need for greater and swifter action to reduce emissions contrasts sharply with the policies and actions of the United States of America. Things like reversing regulation that would require carmakers to make cars more efficient; reversing the previous administration’s Clean Power Plan, relaxing regulation on pipeline companies that allow for more leakage that encourage poor maintenance and inspection; pulling out of nonbinding global agreements that call for emission reductions; etc. And I wonder, with polls showing that 58 percent of Americans are worried about global warming, 70 percent believe global warming will harm future generations, and 71 percent trust climate scientists about global warming, how can we as a nation endorse this kind of policy and these actions that are hostile to climate progress and can only make things worse? More short-term dollars for those who already have most of the dollars?
Coincidental with the release of this IPCC report from the United Nations, the Nobel Prize in Economics was co-awarded to two Americans with much to say about the economy, capital markets, and global warming. William Nordhaus of Yale University was awarded the Prize in Economics for his work in developing economic modeling used to detail the relationship between climate change and the economy. Informed by his work, Nordhaus advocates the use of a carbon tax or fee applied to fossil fuels as the best way account for the costs of using these fuels. The greatest market failure in history results from our failure to account for the external costs of burning fossil fuels. The other Nobel Prize co-winner in economics, Paul Romer of New York University, responded to the announcement of the award saying “it was perfectly possible for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, in line with the latest recommendation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
So this problem is not so big that we cannot contain global warming. Part of the solution is very simple and straightforward. A fee or tax must be levied on fossil fuels. This pricing of carbon is arguably our best first step. The question then becomes: what to do with this money collected. One proposal supported by many is to return all the money (minus about 3 percent for administrating the distribution) to U.S. households. This would be a revenue neutral (does not build government) and market based approach that harnesses the efficiency of capital markets to drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Returning the money to households will protect the households from the increase in costs that result from accounting for the release of greenhouse gasses. This approach is referred to as Fee and Dividend. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is a respected, non-partisan organization working hard to build the political will in Washington for Fee and Dividend legislation. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is respectful to all and trusts that this climate challenge can bring our polarized parties together in solving this human issue. Learn more by going to https://citizensclimatelobby.org/, or call Kent at 907-738-0234.
Kent Barkhau, Sitka
