If not carbon tax, what?
If not carbon tax, what?
The editorial “Carbon caper: Bogus policy” (Nov. 18 and TribLIVE.com) erred by not offering an alternative method to reduce emissions, ignoring the fact that climate change must be slowed.
The editorial claimed a carbon tax will increase prices without reducing fuel usage. Actually, if fossil-fuel prices increase, everyone will cut consumption except the “1 percent” who are so wealthy they will continue to heat their jumbo homes, fly their jets and fuel their gas guzzlers.
Perhaps the Trib prefers a fairer alternative? Rationing would be fairer to the “99 percent” because everyone would get rationing coupons for a normal, nonwasteful lifestyle. Prices wouldn't increase because demand for fossil fuel would drop as the “1 percent” start to live a nonwasteful life. Does the Trib support rationing?
Nationalizing American coal fields could also reduce emissions, as the government would end coal excavation and terminate coal exports. Does the Trib support nationalization?
Taking no serious action to stop climate change, of course, is not an option. I prefer a carbon tax that is remitted to the public in dividends because it gives everyone the freedom to decide individually how to reduce emissions and stops the current system by which thoughtless, wasteful greenhouse-gas polluters pollute our environment for free.
The writer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby (citizensclimatelobby.org).
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.