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?
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: Doing away with cursive is bad idea...
- My view: In the name of God?
- Letter: No prison deficit
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 63
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 45
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30