Thank you for the great article by Amy Calder about the Carbon Cashback 4ME initiative and the efforts of town champions on behalf of a national carbon fee and dividend policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions (“Proponents of climate change carbon resolution voice message at town meetings, other venues,” March 12).

This policy, which proposes a carbon fee to be paid by fossil fuel producers based on the quantity of carbon emitted by the fuels, and a monthly dividend to be returned to all households, has great promise as an effective and fair part of our national climate strategy.

A comment left by a reader of the article erroneously claimed that the policy was regressive. In fact, the lower-income two-thirds of American households would benefit proportionately more than the top third, either breaking even or coming out ahead by virtue of the equal per-person monthly dividend.

The commenter also claimed that this would be a tax and the government can spend it however it wants to. Actually the legislation containing this proposal requires that all the fees be deposited in a trust fund that will be fully disbursed to American households monthly.

The commenter’s suggestion that instead of pricing carbon we should use the General Fund for infrastructure ironically supports taxation, and fails to propose an alternative for reducing carbon emissions.

Cynthia Stancioff
Chesterville