LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Carbon pricing curbs emissions

As the Prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, one would assume that Todd Mackay is mandated to oppose public policy that is not in the taxpayers’ best interest. However, Mr. Mackay’s recent opinion piece arguing against the federal government’s carbon pricing plan (SP, Nov. 13) contradicts this mandate.

A recent Stanford University study estimates that the damages of unchecked climate change will cost future citizens 25-35 per cent of global GDP on an annual basis. Inaction by the current generation of decision makers has no moral or economic justification.

So then, what is the most cost-effective approach to cut emissions?

The answer from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the world’s top economists is unequivocal: Effective climate action plans are based on a foundation of carbon pricing to drive down emissions along market-based least-cost pathways. In the absence of a price on carbon, one is left with a complex web of costly regulations, rebates and mandates.

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission estimates that future GDP will be 3.8 per cent higher under carbon pricing when compared to a pure regulatory approach and that the net costs of effective carbon pricing with revenue recycling are marginal.

Success in combating climate change requires that politicians and groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation break from the trappings of dogma and leftright political tribalism.

Decision-makers and policy advocates must face reality and make full use of the considerable expertise that climate scientists and economists can bring to solving what is perhaps the most critical issue of our time.

David D. Maenz, Saskatoon

Clean incineration answer to trash

Waste management and saving our landfill has become a huge, thorny issue for our city.

“Reduce, recycle and reuse” appears to be easier said than done. Glass and plastic bags are not welcome anywhere and sending electronics to developing countries — where unsuspecting workers put their lives at risk to salvage something useful — seems very unkind.

Is it time to imitate our neighbour to the south in the city and county of Spokane? Spokane has, for the past 10 years, used a high-efficiency incinerator. One pickup, one location and the byproduct is enough electricity to power the city, county, and sell the excess to Seattle. Could our city council take a good hard look at this possibility?

Pickering, Ontario, does exactly what I am proposing, and the emissions in this garbage incinerator are strictly steam. How environmentally friendly is that?

We are a landlocked city in a landlocked province. Trucks spewing carbon dioxide drive around the city picking up recyclables. Other trucks pick up garbage. Now possibly more trucks will pick up refuse that might be made into compost. There is also the out-of-province pollution from trucks sending our unwanted materials elsewhere. And at what cost? Somehow, we need to find a better solution. H.I. Spilchuk, Saskatoon