by Patrick Appel

“They might be a bargain in the long run compared to the havoc global warming will wreak, but both plans constitute a massive new tax.”

You call it a massive new tax; I think of it more as ending a massive subsidy. What else would you call profiting at the expense of the well-being of future generations? And isn’t moving an externality’s cost into the market the right conservative solution?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.