In order to combat the nebulous threat of so-called anthropogenic global warming, James Richter of Lewiston proposes that a carbon fee be placed on the producers and transporters of fossil fuels (July 31).

He admits that “some of the cost of these fees will be passed on to the consumers, no doubt, but both producers and consumers will be motivated to look for more efficient alternatives.” Then we, “the American people,” could get a tax rebate from the carbon fees.

Let me see if I have this straight. Because all involved parties get charged a carbon fee, we consumers end up paying extra for what we need because the producers will simply jack the prices up rather than fund research, and then we get a rebate? What does this accomplish?

And, so the circular reasoning continues.

Back in the ’70s, newspapers and magazines across the land joined in with hyped-up choruses of apocalyptic alarmism over the “approaching” global freeze, and they were blaming man-made pollution for it just like they do today for global warming.

Today, we have the image of a poor polar bear standing precariously on a tiny melting ice floe. Well, guess what? Mars also has polar ice caps, and they’re melting as well. Good grief, I hope that’s not our fault, too. I can’t afford to pay a carbon fee for one planet, let alone two.

Maybe we can blame those stupid Martians for building their evil fuel processors that the rover explorers keep sending us images of.

David T. Theriault, Rumford