To the editor:
I was pleased to see that Ross Wilkinson (Letters, April 4) read my previous letter (March 21), mentioning the plan proposed by Citizens’ Climate Lobby to gradually reduce the burning of fossil fuels (the cause of global warming). Clearly I didn’t provide sufficient explanation in my previous letter, because Mr. Wilkinson concluded that the CCL plan must be a scheme “to override consumer choices with government compulsion.”
In fact, the CCL plan does the opposite. It uses the power of the market to permit consumers to make free choices between products based on fossil fuels and products created using alternative energy. It does this by charging an initially small, but annually incremented, fee on fossil fuels at their points of production or import, then transferring 100 percent of the amount collected to legal citizens and residents on a per capita basis, as a monthly dividend check. Prices of all goods based on fossil fuels would gradually rise, but those of us in the lower 70 percent of incomes would gain more from the dividend than we would pay in increased prices. Studies show that this “carbon fee and dividend” policy (described at citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/) would be effective in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. It would also stimulate the economy (due to spending dividends) and improve public health (due to reduced pollution).
A similar plan was recently proposed by seven Republican statesmen, including the only two men who have ever served both as secretary of the treasury and secretary of state (James A. Baker and George P. Shultz). The Republican plan, called “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends,” is available at www.clcouncil.org. Neither plan would increase the size of government, and both plans would permit elimination of government regulations of fossil fuel use.
Joel A. Huberman
Peterborough