Russell Harland’s recent letter (May 10) regarding fossil fuels vs. renewal energy ignores the massive handouts the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed for many decades. He contends that renewal energy companies shouldn’t need subsidies to be competitive.
It’s true renewables are beginning to get a bigger slice of the pie – and they should. Who wouldn’t prefer to support energy sources that free us from increasing reliance on foreign countries and from the pollution, environmental degradation and health consequences of fossil fuels?
When examining the energy programs of Australia and Canada, Mr. Harland fails to look at the whole picture. Canada’s impending plan is based on British Columbia’s, which has been in place since 2008, and has lowered carbon emissions while their economy kept pace with the rest of the country. It’s been a success and remains very popular.
Sadly, by failing to return the monies collected back to their people, the Australian plan was doomed. The lesson learned is that the “dividend” component of any carbon fee is absolutely necessary to protect both consumers and the economy.
Canada’s plan, once proved successful, could be our model for the future.

Twyla Smith