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?
- Doug Robinson: The first kiss and the long...
- In our opinion: An immigration opportunity
- About Utah: Biggest weekend of the year at...
- Jay Evensen: Why some mothers kill babies:...
- Doug Robinson: Basketball needs a new, less...
- Letter: Socialism, like salt
- In our opinion: Enhancing safe haven support...
- My view: Immigration reform just makes sense,...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Why the... 58
- In our opinion: The Ten Commandments in... 53
- Charles Krauthammer: Defend the... 52
- Letter: Socialism, like salt 48
- Robert Bennett: Making our own spending... 40
- Letter: Disagreement vs. hate 36
- In our opinion: An immigration opportunity 35
- Robert J. Samuelson: Long-term... 26