I read a letter written in response to the commentary suggesting a gasoline tax. Proceeds from the proposed hike of 50 cents per gallon (phased in over five years) would be directed to infrastructure and other quality-of-life improvements ("Done right, gas tax hike means jobs," June 10).
Frank Paturzo's response ("Increase in gasoline tax would be tough to take," June 16) says: "It isn't just a dime a year, but a dime a gallon each time you get gas," willfully misinterpreting the original commentary. We've seen this dialogue before. One published opinion says, "Let's save the planet," then someone else says, "No, it's too expensive."
What if the issue being discussed was cancer? What if I say, "Let's cure cancer?" Would there be a knee-jerk reaction out there saying, "No, it's too expensive?" Probably not. We recognize cancer as a life-threatening illness.
Yet, climate change is far more than that. It threatens not just a life but life as we know it. If we dump carbon into the atmosphere at the rate we are now, science predicts we will soon reach a point of no return, and the planet will switch to a new, higher global temperature. Ask a farmer how he or she feels about moving to northern Saskatchewan.
I support a hefty gas tax because it will serve as a deterrent to carbon dumping. It should be directed toward improving public transportation, and it should be offset by decreasing bus and train fares and decreasing property taxes for those who choose short commutes.
Chris Bystroff
Troy
