Don Condon: Carbon fees will make a real difference

Re “No: By reducing the amount in the air, we’ll save money on healthcare and reduce oil dependence” (Opinions, Jan. 11): Kenneth Richards is spot-on in his assessment of the need for a carbon tax. I prefer to call it a fee, because it is really meant to counteract the negative effects of CO2 on all inhabitants of the planet.

The inefficiency, or “excess burden,” of the tax could be minimized if the funds were returned to households on a pro-rata basis rather than by reducing income taxes. Income tax reductions give politicians too much leeway to play politics and aim the credits toward the most advantageous political outcome, i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy or other influential interest groups. Further, recent studies have shown that this fee-and-dividend approach would actually add 2.1 million jobs and cut CO2 levels by 33 percent in 10 years. This is definitely an opportune time to do something which will really make a difference.

This story was originally published January 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM with the headline "Don Condon: Carbon fees will make a real difference."