To the editor,
Re: Columnist too dismissive of carbon tax, Letters, Sept. 26.
I was also disturbed by Mr Fletcher’s view on the carbon tax, but from the opposite perspective of Ms. Laura Sacks. I was disappointed when he first supported this social engineering carbon tax and yes, delighted that on further reflection, he changed his mind.
I have a particular distaste for collectivism so the ‘revenue neutral’ label has always earned my condemnation. Passing money from those who earn it to those who don’t is theft, pure and simple. It is also the basis of socialism, the most destructive-of-economies political system ever invented.
But what of Ms. Sacks’ claims of a green China or booming green economies?
Research by a green group, Coalswarm, determining that China is currently building 259 gigawatts of new coal-fired, electrical generating capacity. Hardly an action supporting Ms. Sacks’ ‘China shifts to green’ dialogue.
Further, significant research points out that for every green job created, 2.2 other jobs are destroyed. Yes, a green future impoverishes all, and needlessly so.
The idea that ‘carbon dioxide is a pollutant’ is the most blatant bit of public propaganda pushed since the ‘socialism is great’ lie fell victim to reality, confirmed recently again to the citizens of Venezuela.
But I don’t expect to sway Ms. Sacks’ view. As Micheal Shermer pointed out in his book, The Believing Brain, all too many people look for statements that support their beliefs, rejecting those words that challenge them.
However, we each have the ability to rummage through our own brains, picking out the mistaken ideas of the past and improving our thought process by reject blatant propaganda. That’s something Tom Fletcher did for which he earned my admiration.
Gary Seinen,
Port Alberni