In “House OKs bill to improve climate resiliency” (June 14), Massachusetts state representatives approved borrowing funds to protect from the damaging effects of climate change.
I applaud Gov. Charlie Baker and the House for working to shore up susceptible infrastructure. This is an undeniably important step to ensure quality of life and well-being for Massachusetts residents in the decades to come. Yet, without efforts to reduce carbon emissions, investing money in resiliency infrastructure is like taking medication to improve symptoms while failing to treat the cause of said symptoms.
As a young person entering graduate school, I am concerned about the cumulative expenses of climate resiliency over my lifetime. Unless resiliency is part of a dual strategy that also includes climate mitigation and reduction of emissions, it will be woefully inadequate and will cost younger generations millions. It also will have serious impacts on quality of life for my generation and those that follow.
To combat climate change, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. This can be accomplished through carbon pricing. The idea is simple: incentivize reductions in emissions by placing a price on each unit of emission. The less a company or household emits, the less they pay.
And the financial burden of carbon pricing on citizen consumers can be alleviated or eliminated by redistributing the revenue to individual households. The majority of the burden would be placed those who emit the most, typically large companies. Most citizens would benefit financially when revenue is redistributed.
I was pleased to learn recently that the state Senate passed carbon-pricing legislation, a good step toward emissions reduction. I am heartened by this decision, and hopeful that the house will follow suit with the support of Gov. Baker.
Katharine Winkler
Sunderland