Regarding the Sept. 10 editorial “Low on energy”:

The editorial’s subhed was “Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Romney has a workable plan to reduce carbon burning.” Yes, and isn’t it wonderful? If President Obama’s plan had worked, energy prices would have already “necessarily” skyrocketed, as he predicted in a 2008 interview, thus handicapping any chance of the economy recovering this decade from the depredations of the president’s other policies.

The real distinction between the two candidates is huge. Mr. Obama’s lack of a workable plan results from almost four years of ineptitude at the task of reducing carbon burning; Mitt Romney’s results from the recognition that coming up with such a plan would be a fool’s errand.

William Mills, Sterling

Thanks for calling attention to the less-than-adequate attention paid by President Obama and Mitt Romney to the environmental and energy challenges that this country faces.

The editorial rightly pointed out the correct approach: imposing a carbon tax. In defense of the president, although his approach might come across as haphazard, he has achieved what he could in the face of a hostile Congress. Even getting a somewhat-business-friendly system such as “cap-and-trade” was not possible; how would a more progressive and fair “carbon tax” likely fare?

Given this scenario, a tax credit for wind or solar power might be the only way to move this country in the right direction.

Rekha Nadkarni, McLean

The writer is a community advocate for the Sierra Club.