The News Tribune Editorial Board was wise to recognize that the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is economically sound (Our View: “ A climate win Democrats and Republicans both can embrace ,” Nov. 13).
How can 3,589 economists (as tallied by the Wall Street Journal in January 2019), including four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, be wrong?
The editorial failed to mention that the larger relative payment to low-wage earners would completely cover the increased costs of goods and services, while the small percentage of high-income citizens for whom the dividend would not offset the increased costs would face only a small impact proportional to their earnings. In addition, there is a border adjustment to ensure that American business is not made less competitive in world markets and that foreign governments would have to institute a carbon tax as well to preserve equal access to U.S. markets.
I may live in California, but from a climate standpoint, Rep. Pete Stauber’s actions affect me and my family as much as they do Minnesotans.
Gary M. Stewart
ADVERTISEMENT
Laguna Beach, California
