A Tesoro Corp. refinery in Anacortes, Wash., after a fatal overnight fire and explosion. (Ted S. Warren/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The Feb. 9 article “GOP statesmen propose replacing Obama climate policies with carbon tax” failed to remind readers of a compelling reason — highly relevant to the current debate over tax reform — that a carbon tax is the most workable approach to addressing carbon emissions. Any regime we adopt must have a means to impose our “carbon price” on imports. If not, we can expect major producers of climate gases (e.g., steel furnaces) to be replaced by plants in low-carbon-cost countries (long known as “leakage”).

A carbon tax is considered by many experts to be slam-dunk legal as a classic “indirect tax” for which border adjustment is allowed under international law. It is the best means by which carbon emissions can be curtailed here without sending our key industrial production there. 

Thomas M. Sneeringer, Washington

The writer is the president of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws.

The Feb. 9 news article on a proposed carbon tax made me look twice. First, to make sure “GOP” did not refer to the current administration. Then I came to the part about giving each family a $2,000 dividend from the proposed carbon tax! Who couldn’t use $2,000? Wait. Wasn’t the tax supposed to go into developing alternative energy sources that would reduce carbon emissions? Thus the “dividend” would have little or no effect on air pollution.

I guess it’s a choice between being wealthy or healthy. As someone once said, “Aye, there’s the rub.”

Terry C. Smith, Arnold