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?
- Which states are best for tax payers?
- Jay Evensen: No more rent for inmates —...
- In our opinion: Western land standoff aside,...
- Doug Robinson: Horrific crimes show the thin...
- Letter: Right and wrong
- My view: Utah's agriculture industry needs...
- Letter: Plenty of danger in e-cigarettes
- Kathleen Parker: Putin knows in geopolitical...
- Letter: Right and wrong 94
- My view: Anti-science ruins the climate... 68
- Robert Bennett: Immigration reform... 64
- Letter: Science consensus is slow,... 49
- In our opinion: Confronted by power,... 40
- In our opinion: Western land standoff... 35
- Letter: Republican empathy too rare 28
- John Hoffmire: Why shouldn’t... 28