In response to \u201cA climate bill worthy of support\u201d (March 19):<\/p>\n
Marshall Saunders\u2019 opinion piece espousing a carbon fee and dividend was perfectly stated. There is broad consensus among economists who have considered how best to transition to clean energy: a predictable, increasing carbon fee. While some dispute the political feasibility of a carbon fee versus \u201ccap and trade,\u201d there is no real dispute that a carbon fee is the most effective method and can be implemented quickly without a bureaucracy. The equal return of the dividend offsets the fee and rewards conservation. By contrast, with \u201ccap and trade,\u201d we can expect to get hoodwinked by polluters and market gamers by trading credits for ongoing pollution in exchange for an illusion, say, preserving an acre of distant forest \u2013 while other tracts are slashed and burned. I challenge our legislators to lead with good national policy, not just what feels safe.<\/p>\n
JOHN REAVES<\/p>\n
San Diego<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In response to \u201cA climate bill worthy of support\u201d (March 19): Marshall Saunders\u2019 opinion piece espousing a carbon fee and dividend was perfectly stated. There is broad consensus among economists who have considered how best to transition to clean energy: … Continue reading