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?
- Everything you need to know about the...
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult...
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach
- Letter: Utah's birthright
- My view: Utah's public education system:...
- Socratic observations — Politics are...
- Doug Robinson: So little time, so many...
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line...
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 55
- Letter: Learn the Constitution 51
- In our opinion: Explaining editorial... 44
- Letter: Utah's birthright 37
- John Florez: Corporate or public... 31
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 29
- Letter: Whole story 28
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 27