Don't dismiss carbon tax
The editorial “Obama's climate monstrosity: Fight back, Congress” (June 28 and TribLIVE.com) threw many arguments at President Obama's climate action speech. But it is too bad that the Trib didn't remind him that he can't fight Big Oil.
The Trib should have told him that all the major oil companies say on their web pages that when the government thinks it must institute policies to fight climate change, they suggest using an industrywide, transparent, fair, predictable, market-based system, instead of regulations, to reduce emissions. Big Oil hates regulations. ExxonMobil even says it doesn't usually suggest new taxes, but in the case of climate change, it would prefer a new carbon tax as long as it is offset by reductions in personal and corporate income taxes.
The problem with doing nothing on climate change is it is a bad bet for Republicans with the 2016 presidential election looming. Republicans won't win a national election if they haven't supported any climate change policy at all.
Which would the Trib prefer: Hillary Clinton in the White House or a Republican-sponsored carbon tax to allow the public to decide how to reduce emissions?
The writer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby (citizensclimatelobby.org).
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Uber’s $50 million ‘slap on the wrist’
- Reinstitute the draft
- Kane, Clinton display similar strategies
- Be cautious with refugees
- Speak up, liberals
- Refugees would tax resources
- Vetting the refugees
- Make Narcan one-shot deal
- Visiting Nurses Association turns 50
- Novel ideas
- Highlands’ Machiavellian conduct