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?
- Kathleen Parker: The GOP's toxic messaging
- In our opinion: U.S. schools still separate...
- George F. Will: Why Iran should be contained
- Richard Davis: Don't turn A.G. into an...
- In our opinion: Letting Afghanistan revert to...
- About Utah: His business is fun, games and...
- Robert Bennett: 'Nuclear option' ends...
- In our opinion: U.S. schools still... 41
- Robert J. Samuelson: Economics lacks... 40
- Charles Krauthammer: The real problem... 37
- Letter: Preventative care 29
- Robert Bennett: 'Nuclear option' ends... 27
- Kathleen Parker: The GOP's toxic messaging 27
- Letter: Insurance website 21
- Letter: Buying politicians 20