Carbon tax rebate is good for Canadian families
Re: the carbon tax.
Though I like to call it a carbon ‘fee’ rather than ‘tax’ on pollution, there is something about this carbon fee/tax that frequently is missed. This ‘something’ is a financial rebate back to us.
In fancy terms, it’s called the Climate Action Incentive Payment. Hey! That’s money in our pockets after filing this year’s federal income tax return. The average family of four received about $300 this year. Unless you have a money tree, $300 is a lot of money for most families.
We are friendly with a particular family in town, which is a case in point. This single parent dad works in the retail sector and has four kids. By mid-August, this dad is getting his kids organized for back to school outfits — one outfit per child. As a savvy shopper (and my friend avoids name brands), he can buy new sneakers, a pair of jeans/pants, a T-shirt, socks and underwear for each child with the $268 he received from the carbon fee/tax rebate money. Every child will go to school feeling proud of their dad and their new ‘duds’.
This Climate Action Incentive Payment from the carbon fee/tax is a way of redistributing some income.
The world must work to eliminate all nuclear weapons
Some 74 years ago last week, a bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki. More than 200,000 people were killed in an instant.
Nuclear weapons are not bigger, better bombs. They are indiscriminate, killing civilians and all life, far and wide over a protracted period of time.
An atomic bomb will put dust into the atmosphere that goes around the world diminishing the sunlight, creating a nuclear winter, resulting in crop failure leading to starvation.
Take these computer simulations of a limited nuclear war between Pakistan and India, over Kashmir or the lack of water from the disappearing Himalayan glaciers to the Indus and Ganges Rivers. Exploding just half of their approximately 100-plus nuclear bombs each country has would result in a nuclear winter and two billion people starving to death over the next 10 years. Nuclear weapons also cause radiation that kills more slowly in the way of cancers, heart attacks, kidney failure, and congenital abnormalities like Down’s syndrome.
Further, a nuclear bomb exploded high in the atmosphere, over, say, North America, would knock out all electricity, disrupting communication, due to an electromagnetic pulse similar to the solar flare that blacked out Quebec in 1989.
We must thus eliminate all nuclear weapons of mass destruction through Canada and other countries signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
We need to take nuclear arms off hair-trigger alert. We must stop spending on the arms race.
Richard Denton, MD
Columnist spot on about Sudbury’s future in oil
Re: ‘May: Council has conflicting visions for Sudbury’s future in oil,’ Aug. 9.
I did a double-take when I read the title of this solid, rational, fact-based article detailing the transition Sudbury and the world is in. Sudbury’s future in oil? Must be a typo.
I completely agree with all of Steve May’s points. Sudbury must not put on the breaks to its transition towards its strategic priority of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 by dumping our tax dollars on a destructive dinosaur source of energy. Now is the time to quietly allow the carbon tax to do its work while investing in accelerating mitigation efforts to protect Sudbury citizens from the upcoming impacts of climate change.
Greater Sudbury has already taken important steps in this direction such as switching to hybrid vehicles and planning for more bicycle lanes. That is the way towards a cleaner, safer future. Surely, council will aggressively fight against the self-defeating M-4.