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?
- About Utah: He's going public (again) for a...
- Doug Robinson: The high cost of coaches
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Long-term...
- John Hoffmire: The difficulty of measuring...
- In our opinion: Federal Reserve Bank faces...
- Letter: Just one breadwinner
- My view: Climate change denial: Scientific...
- Robert J. Samuelson: The power of Moore's Law...
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 40
- John Hoffmire: The difficulty of... 38
- Letter: Next president? 36
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 34
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win... 28
- Doug Robinson: The high cost of coaches 28