(Thinkstock)
Re: “The right way to tax carbon,” Jan. 2 editorial (reprinted from Bloomberg View).
Bloomberg View’s editorial discusses the proposal in Washington state for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Congratulations to The Post for publishing it.
Such a fee deserves serious consideration for Colorado. Here there is strong opposition to such a fee because of the harm it could do to local budgets and people who depend on coal, gas and oil revenues and on the associated jobs. I submit that the counties opposing a carbon tax might consider the benefits that would accrue to farmers, the ski industry, etc., by doing our part to stabilize the climate as much as we are able. These counties might be well-advised to begin planning for the inevitable future rather than grousing too much about change.
In Colorado we might pass such a fee and dividend and include some kind of compensation to those who are directly affected.
Jonathan F. Ormes, Denver
This letter was published in the Jan. 7 edition.The voters of Washington state are poised to take a big step in the right direction. Just copy that revenue-neutral tax 49 times and we have a national policy. But that method could take a while, a long, long while. Back in 1789 we decided to unite the states, with good reason. Problems of national and global status should be addressed in a united fashion, rather than piecemeal, state by state, particularly when a problem as urgent as climate disruption is upon us, with this past year of 2015 the hottest on record.
Let the U.S. Congress follow the example of Washington state and deliver a firm policy to cut emission of carbon dioxide.
Phil Nelson, Golden
This letter was published in the Jan. 7 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
