Michael Gerson thinks climate change needs political action because it is serious, yet he explains that Congress won't act because there is no reward in it for them ("Battle over climate change is more divisive than government shutdown," Oct. 11). How about doing their jobs and cashing their paychecks with a modicum of self-respect?
Readers should please ask their representatives to sponsor revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation to fight climate change. It is better for consumers than Environmental Protection Agency regulations because regulations saddle consumers with price increases. However, a carbon tax is paid by fossil fuel producers and can be rebated to individuals, so folks will have rebates to help them cope with price increases due to the carbon tax.
Which would you prefer: Regulations and higher prices, or a carbon tax and higher prices with an offsetting rebate?
- 10 things you never knew about the FBI
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook for...
- Robert Bennett: Hamas and its financial...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 109
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 72
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 52
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 46
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 45
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- In our opinion: Use market forces and... 33