In her recent op-ed piece on climate change ("Cool solution for a warming planet," Aug. 9), writer Dana Knighten exposes herself as a liberal or "progressive," by first parsing the language of revenue. She proposes putting a price or fee on carbon, but never uses the word tax. But by using the government as the collector and distributor of these proposed fees, this amounts to nothing more than a tax meant to redistribute wealth. Socialist indeed.
Secondly, and perhaps most important, is her utter lack of knowledge as to how a (reasonably) free market operates. Only when the price of a product, or in this case, a commodity, reaches a point where the consumer changes purchasing habits will a new supplier (her new technologies) come to market and fill the void left by the out-of-favor supplier.