You climate-change deniers could give a little

OK, deniers: Let's just roll with your unshakable belief that carbon emissions aren't causing climate changes.

Glacier National Park, which once had 125 glaciers, now has 20. The pine bark beetle has edged into Yellowstone.

A shipping lane has opened through the Arctic. Storms keep getting bigger and more violent blah blah you've heard it all so let's set theory aside for things easy to Google.

Each of the 400 coal-fired plants around the United States emit an average of 366,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants per year -- mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.

These fumes and particulates kill an estimated 15,000 U.S. citizens yearly from heart attacks, lung disease, cancer and asthma. Most bodies of water are so contaminated by mercury you'd scarcely dare eat fish from them.

I rolled with you on point A: Mankind's pollution may not be causing climate change.

Are you with me on point B: Smokestack exhausts are hazardous to humans and the ecosystem? Yes?

As well, you fear that if manufacturing plants pay more for electricity, they will pass the increased cost of goods on to you. That is why you call cap-and-trade "cap and tax."

But listen to an expert in the field: Richard Kelly, CEO of Minnesota-based Xcel Energy.

According to an article in the Star Tribune last year, he believes that a $20 per ton carbon tax, as considered in the now-dormant legislation, would translate to less than a 5 percent increase for ratepayers.

Your $100 energy bill would rise to $105. My question to you: Would you be willing to pay $5 more per month as a contribution toward cleaner air and water?

Right. Well, then, what about this?

Suppose, too, that the manufacturing plants you fear may pass costs on to you could find 5 percent savings through conservation. There's a lot of wasted electricity where I work.

The question then becomes: Would you support curbing emissions if it would make for cleaner air and water (and create jobs) and cost you nothing?

In 2010, the human species burned 6 billion tons of coal. Energy demand is expected to rise by 30 percent by 2030, which means burning roughly 8 billion tons per year.

For now I'll roll with your theory that our ecosystem has infinite capacity to absorb the waste, if you will agree that 8 billion tons is really a lot of coal.

Randy Skjerly works for a St. Paul-based publishing firm.