It appears that Rabbi Judy Weiss' letter to the editor ("Letter: Climate change op-ed stands as lesson for writers ," Jan. 5) has struck a nerve with Timothy Charette of Fairhaven ("Your View: Climate change debate is nowhere near settled," Jan. 9). So much so, that he makes several unfounded assertions about the scientific record as well as about the carbon tax proposal that Rabbi Weiss described.

It appears that Rabbi Judy Weiss' letter to the editor ("Letter: Climate change op-ed stands as lesson for writers ," Jan. 5) has struck a nerve with Timothy Charette of Fairhaven ("Your View: Climate change debate is nowhere near settled," Jan. 9). So much so, that he makes several unfounded assertions about the scientific record as well as about the carbon tax proposal that Rabbi Weiss described.



I don't know why it is that people who insist on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change always feel compelled to point out that Earth has undergone changes in average temperature before, with some of these changes resulting in ice ages or — if Mr. Charette insists — Glacial Ages.



People who have faith in the scientific process (and don't make a habit of questioning other scientific endeavors like quantum mechanics or special relativity) don't see a reason to doubt the occurrence of Glacial Ages, evidence of which appears in the geological record assembled by the same scientists Mr. Charette now insists on questioning.



Just for the record, Earth has undergone temperature variations in the past when there were no Gucci factories or SUVs. But those variations occurred over hundreds, thousands or millions of years. The current increase in average temperature has occurred over decades. The increase scientists have measured, approximately +0.8 Celcius, is not unusual in the geological record, but the speed of its occurrence is. This significant and rapid change is what marks this change as man-made.



Mr. Charette's other assertions could be similarly dispatched, but it is more important to get to his other major distortion, and that is the motivation behind the carbon tax proposal promoted by Citizens Climate Lobby.



Pure and simple, fossil fuel users today are free to pollute. Their pollution imposes costs on everyone in the form of increasingly destructive storms, crop losses, floods, droughts, wildfires, and health impacts due to particulates and searing heat waves. Fossil fuel companies take advantage of this and accumulate private profits while socializing these costs.



A carbon fee and dividend would correct this market distortion by making prices for fossil fuels more accurately reflect full lifecycle costs. The carbon fee would start small and gradually increase. One hundred percent of annual proceeds would be returned to households on an equal basis — annually. Border adjustments would maintain a level playing field in international markets. The guarantee of constantly rising fossil fuel prices would stimulate private (not government) investment in conservation, efficiency and renewable energy.



Since the revenue from the tax is returned to households, this policy empowers consumers, not the government. Since consumers are free to use their dividend checks as they see fit, this policy allows consumers to respond as they see fit and does not "dictate certain behaviors." Since 100 percent of revenues are returned to households on a flat basis, the tax is not regressive or punitive. Because rising fossil fuel prices will stimulate private investment, this policy will stimulate business and promote job growth. Because the policy is solely about a fair, simple and transparent fee on the carbon content in fossil fuels, it grants no new powers to any government agency that would allow authorities to implement policies of public or private land use.



Today, fossil fuel companies are shaking down every living being on the planet. It's time to make fossil fuel prices reflect true costs. A fair, simple and transparent carbon fee and dividend policy implemented at the federal level would put an end to this corporate attack on a sustainable climate. It is time to bring the curtain down on those who would profit by destroying the climate to which all life on Earth is adapted.