Thank you for publishing Hubert Kauffman’s column explaining there is no controversy about climate change except to the extent it has been manufactured by those who have a financial interest in fossil fuels (Aug. 18).
Kauffman could have mentioned that some politicians try to deny climate change because they don’t like policies used to lower emissions and stabilize the climate. However, it is silly to deny a problem exists just because you don’t like any of its solutions. It is better to research new solutions.
Regarding climate change, EPA regulations are a common approach, but they are expensive to institute, full of uncertainty for investors, and Congress doesn’t like increasing government regulations. Setting caps and goals for renewables involves guesswork and choosing favorites. Giving loans, grants and credits for new technologies involves government playing favorites and loaning taxpayer money. None of those are good options to fight climate change.
However, a revenue-neutral carbon tax paid by oil, gas and coal producers and rebated to households is an excellent option according to economists, both conservative and liberal. By rebating the tax to households, individuals would be sheltered from increases in utility rates or prices.
By charging a tax based on the carbon emissions each fuel produces, the tax would be fair, economy-wide (not just targeting some industries, like regulations), and it would be predictable. Predictability encourages private investors to invest in new renewable technologies, growing the economy and creating jobs.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would help fight climate change.
Judy Weiss, Brookline, Mass.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
