An editor's note written and signed by a committee on one of the most important topics of our time.

A threshold for the dignity of humanity was established in the 19th century with the virtual abolition of slavery. The 20th century extended democracy with universal suffrage. The moral imperative of this, our 21st century, is to reverse human- induced climate change. The awesome engine of civilization has propelled us to a position of such power that we are not only masters of our own fate, but that of the planet.

The best science tells us that the planet is heating up at a rate that, during our grandchildren's lifetimes, will bring disruption to economic and social activity on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. While the climate is a complex system, there is a simple reason why it is changing so quickly: It's because we use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases a year.

The single most effective measure we can deploy to stem the free flow of greenhouse gases is to make them more expensive to emit.

Putting a price on carbon is less rousing than abolition of slavery or universal suffrage, but doing it will take no less courage. Carbon pervades our economy like no other substance; putting a price on it will immediately make everything we depend on more expensive, from groceries to gas to electricity.

A shrinking minority of skeptics and those who have a vested interest in inaction on climate change will inevitably heap criticism on carbon pricing. For the rest of us who accept that climate change is happening and that we can do something about it before it gets out of control, it is absurd, unethical and reckless not to use the most effective tool that we have: the market. If people must pay to pollute, they will opt to pollute less.

But, as with any change to an economic system, the devil is in the details. Any attempt to put a price on carbon must be elegantly designed to make sure it is effective and fair, while minimizing the unintended effects.

That means ensuring it's revenue-neutral for the most vulnerable segments of the population, by sending out quarterly eco-rebates. It means making sure that no province sees disproportionate wealth flow outside its borders.

It means getting the price right (in combination with other policy tools such as access to capital), so there is sufficient incentive for all economic actors to reduce their greenhouse- gas emissions.

It means phasing in the carbon price gradually, with a clear schedule that is long, legal and hard, so it spurs positive investments toward a more efficient and low-carbon economy, and so citizens do not face overnight price shocks. Both consumers and industry should pay their fair share for polluting and save their fair share by making reductions.

It means acknowledging that there will be different winners and losers than under our current misaligned price system, and ensuring that there is a just transition strategy to help displaced workers retool and retrain for the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that will be created in the low-carbon economy.

It all starts by putting a price on carbon, so what should the price be? The British treasury estimates the social cost of a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions at $60, rising by about $2 a year, and most carbon analysts say anything less than $30 a tonne wouldn't provide sufficient incentive to make serious reductions.

Fully phased in, $30 a tonne would redeploy $20-billion a year in the Canadian economy. For the consumer, it would mean paying as much as 10 cents more per litre for gasoline and one to three cents more per kWh for electricity. For an oil company, it would add an extra $2 to $3 a barrel, or about one-10th of the fluctuation in oil prices over the past six months.

The net effect of a well-designed carbon price would be to open the floodgates for billions of dollars to be invested in new and improved green-collar jobs, and capital stock geared toward a more efficient economy. This is sorely needed, since most of Canada's industrial infrastructure is living on borrowed time, addicted to cheap energy and thirsty for new investment flows.

By failing to put a hard price on carbon, this week's budget falls short of real action. Climate change won't be fixed by frittering around the edges; it will require harnessing the power of the market itself to drive the changes, as well as complementary public investment and regulations to steer change and magnify the impact. The future of our environment and our grandchildren depends on the courage of Canadians and our politicians to take such actions today.

Signed by: Bill Young, President, Social Capital Partners; Eugene Ellman, Exec. Director, SIO; Robert Bateman, Artist/Entrepreneur; Heather Mallick, Journalist, CBC; David Butterfield, Chairman, Loreto Bay Co.; James Clancy, National President, NUPGE; Carol Newell, Order of Canada; Julie Gelfand, President, Nature Canada; Joel Solomon, Renewal Partners; Margaret Zeidler, President, Urbanspace Property Group; Donna Morton, Ashoka Fellow, Centre for Integral Economics; Toby Heaps, Editor, Corporate Knights; Dr. Ann Dale, Trudeau Fellow, Royal Roads University; Joan Kuyek, National Coordinator, Mining Watch Canada; Ronald Wright, Massey Lecturer, author; Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada; Robert Schad, Chairman, Earth Rangers and Founder of Husky Injection Molding Systems; Andrew Heintzman, President, Investeco Capital Corp.; Paul Moist, National President, CUPE; Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence.

This editorial originally appeared in The Globe And Mail on Wednesday, March 21, 2007.