You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
September 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Carbon tax is a good solution
Boy, do we need some congressional attention to climate change. [“Special report: Sea Change,” seattletimes.com, Sept. 13.]
The House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is actually holding a hearing on Sept. 18.
However, the title is, “The Obama Administration’s Climate Change Policies and Activities.” Since many House members have been critical of President Obama’s intention to use the Environmental Protection Agency to bypass a neglectful Congress, it looks like this hearing could turn into another negative exercise, instead of a serious look at the critical, urgent matter of responding to carbon dioxide emissions increases.
What if, instead of attacking the president’s plan, the hearing focused on the science and on solutions that might provide an alternative to regulations?
I’m guessing many of the conservatives and former presidential advisers who favor a carbon tax are itching to be invited. A carbon tax that gives revenue back to the taxpayer is a truly conservative, market-based approach.
Distributing the carbon-tax revenue back to the public would give consumers the additional income to deal with the price increases that would result from companies paying this tax. Making the carbon tax revenue-neutral aligns with the Republican principle of keeping the federal government from growing larger.
Let’s not just sit back and see what happens at the hearing. Let’s urge our representatives to broaden the agenda of their climate-change hearing to focus on science and solutions.
Mary Davies, Seattle
July 11, 2013 at 7:28 PM
China will get its coal somewhere
The letters that I read in The Times bearing on the subject of coal trains advance the proposition that not exporting coal to China will have a positive effect on stemming global warming. [“Northwest Voices: Coal terminals and air pollution,” Opinion, July 10.]
This is naive. If the United States does not ship coal to China, China will, of course, buy it from someone else. This would have zero effect on global warming, and have a negative effect on our fragile economy.
Victor Matous, Shoreline
Carbon taxes should go both ways
As The Economist so succinctly stated, “the world will one day adopt a carbon tax — but only after exhausting all the alternatives.”
It occurs to me that such a tax needs to cut two ways, taxing carbon combustion while issuing credits for “biocarbon solutions.” [“Guest column: Biocarbon solutions for the climate,” Opinion, July 10.]
If taxes would be market-based incentives to find ways to reduce carbon combustion, then tax credits could certainly be market-based incentives to develop new ways to capture and use atmospheric carbon.
Thomas Dyer, Seattle
May 15, 2013 at 6:33 AM
Put a price on carbon
While it’s true that 400 parts per million (ppm) is only slightly more damaging than 399 ppm, the sad news is that this new “record” is sure to be broken in a matter of months, first by 401 ppm, then 402 and 403 [“Atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels hit worrisome milestone,” News, May 12].
When will it stop? Whenever we decide to finally stop using fossil fuels. How can we stop such a routine part of our day-to-day lives? By putting a price on carbon, preferably at the source, with the income rebated to all citizens. Join Citizens Climate Lobby to help make this happen. We have a lot of work to do; let’s do it now.
Fran Koehler, Seattle
Trending with readers