Letters

Rewarding

I am glad to see that at least one citizen of Colfax has recently visited the Perkins House.

It is certainly true that this historic building and its grounds are the pride of Colfax.

Unfortunately only three Colfax residents stepped up to join the Whitman County Historical Society’s Perkins House Committee.

The committee chairperson is from Oakesdale.

The person that worked for four days to make sure the grounds were ready for the Ice Cream Social is from Thornton.

The person that organized the social and coordinated all exhibits and events on the day of the social is from the west side of the Cascades.

The routine lawn mowing and yard maintenance is done by the City of Colfax.

The historical society has no paid staff, only volunteers.

Next time you wonder who should help maintain the Perkins House, provide tours through it and assure a positive image of Colfax, look into a mirror. The person you see looking back at you must go to our website, http://www.whitmancountyhistoricalsociety.org, click on contact and send a message to any of the board members listed there. Tell us you want to volunteer, tell how much time you can make available and tell us what you are interested in doing. You will be welcomed and you will find your volunteer experience personally rewarding.

Daniel Leonard, WCHS Board member

Johnson

Carbon Fee

Gordon Forgey’s August 6 editorial, A fundamental challenge, discussed problems in the Pacific Northwest associated with climate change, including extreme drought and reduced fisheries. He called us to action “to address the changes predicted to come,” regardless of our personal beliefs about the cause. I strongly agree that we must act now, and I appreciate his drawing our attention to this critical issue.

Forgey said we need “non-political thinking.” Citizens’ Climate Lobby (citizensclimatelobby.org) has a practical, non-partisan solution: revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend legislation.

This market-based solution places a gradually increasing “carbon fee” on fossil fuels at their source to reflect the social costs of burning carbon fuels, such as increased asthma. Companies would have clear market signals about the need to adjust operations. Companies prefer the clarity and simplicity of a carbon fee to pages of prescriptive government regulations. New technologies would be encouraged as the costs of these alternatives drop relative to fossil fuels. Government would not pick winners and losers, the market would.

The “revenue-neutral” part of the solution means government would not grow in size as a result of this legislation. Money collected as carbon fees would be distributed to households as monthly “dividends,” injecting money into the economy, expanding consumer choice. The money would not be available for politicians’ favorite pork-barrel projects. The solution also includes adjustments for imports and exports to preserve the competitive position of U.S. industries, including agriculture, and encourage foreign governments to put an equivalent price on carbon in their countries.

Forgey’s final point was that we should evaluate how national candidates will act on this issue. We can do this by asking if they would support revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend legislation. An analysis by Regional Economic Models, Inc. showed it would add more than 2 million U.S. jobs in 10 years, while reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 33 percent. That’s a non-political, win-win solution I hope all candidates will support.

Virginia Lohr,

Pullman

Designated

For those of you opposed to abortion, would you consider making a money donation to Planned Parenthood designated for long-term contraception for young girls? I’m sure they would be happy to accept that. No teenager needs a baby to care for as her adult dreams are forming, and many cannot afford this more expensive kind of contraception that lasts for years. We all need to take positive steps to prevent abortion ever arising as an option.

Roz Luther, Spokane