What’s your preferred term for the planet’s climate predicament? “Global warming?” The warming isn’t global. “Climate Crisis?” That’s problematic, discouraging some overwhelmed by the prospect. Others find it too extreme.

“Climate change” may be accurate. Whatever your term, it’s a scientifically confirmed concern and humans are a prime cause. It incites distress planetwide. I appreciate Susan Atkinson’s recent op-ed on the issue (June 19, “Dry, Drier, Driest”), its impacts and solution.

Some 84% of economists believe global warming presents a clear danger to U.S. and global economies. Addressing climate change is less expensive than paying for its disasters.

Pricing carbon is the best first step to address climate change. It works fast to reduce carbon pollution. We’ll start seeing reduced carbon emissions in as little as nine months. Thirty-four countries have a price on carbon, including a border adjustment. The U.S. is one of two developed economies that don’t have that. As a result, we pay those nations a fee for exports, which we wouldn’t be paying if we had a carbon fee.

In 2018, BP and Royal Dutch Shell leaders supported government rules putting a price on greenhouse-gas pollution.

Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund said, “Our research shows that it provides the most effective incentive to make progress in decarbonization at the scale and the speed needed to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.”

Lindsay Graham said, “When you put a price on carbon, everything else works.”

Call Rep. Lauren Boebert and Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper often, asking them to support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR-2307).

Andrew Zeiler

Bayfield