A18 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.MONDAY, OCTOBER 21 , 2019
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR[email protected]LOCAL OPINIONSI
N AN ideal world, our leaders would acknowl-
edge the danger of climate change and seek the
best way to combat it. If they did, they would
easily find an answer that is effective and pro-
gressive: The latest bulletin from the International
Monetary Fund maps what it would take to restrain
warming to tolerable levels without wasting massive
amounts of money or unnecessarily harming work-
ers, companies and households.
In our far-from-ideal world, President Trump can’t
even acknowledge the problem, and the Democrats
who call for immediate action seem to be running
from the best solutions.
The IMF reiterates what economists have long
understood: Enacting a carbon tax is “the single most
powerful and efficient tool” because pricing mecha-
nisms “make it costlier to emit greenhouse gases and
allow businesses and individuals to choose how to
conserve energy or switch to greener sources through
a range of opportunities.” Politicians should favor
choice and flexibility over central planning. “People
and firms will identify which changes in behavior
reduce emissions — for example, purchasing a more
efficient refrigerator versus an electric car — at thelowest cost.”
By contrast, “regulations might not leave suffi-
cient flexibility for households and firms to find
least-cost options.” Regulators might not foresee or
support novel technologies, and intrusive rules “mo-
tivate firms to collude with officials to alter or evade
the regulations.” They also provide weak incentives
for companies to invest in a wide range of better
technology, because only the state’s favored ap-
proaches to decarbonizing the economy would be
rewarded. For these reasons, regulatory and other
alternative approaches cost society some 50 to
100 percent more than a carbon tax for the same
environmental benefits.
The IMF found that the average global price is a
paltry $2 per ton of carbon dioxide, while the world
requires a $75-per-ton global carbon tax by 2030 to
keep warming below the 2-degree Celsius threshold
scientists advise. Electricity prices would rise 70 per-
cent on average — though only 53 percent in the
United States — and gasoline prices 5 percent to
15 percent in most places.
But that’s the picture before one considers what
the money raised by a carbon tax could do. If govern-ments recycled the revenue back to low-income and
vulnerable people, and cut economically inefficient
taxes — such as income taxes — a $50-per-ton carbon
tax would feel to the economy more like $20 per ton.
The plan would help low-income households and
place a higher burden on the upper-income bracket.
There could also be money for essential research and
development to aid the energy transition.
So is this the plan that the Democratic presidential
candidates have embraced? If only. Though former
vice president Joe Biden and former Texas congress-
man Beto O’Rourke have cautiously acknowledged
the importance of carbon pricing, they are far more
specific in their ideas for spending lots of money.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recently adopted a
regulate-and-spend program. And Sen. Bernie Sand-
ers (I-Vt.) would have the federal government estab-
lish its own utilities and build its own power-
generation facilities, from scratch, according to, yes, a
central plan.
The science does not change because politicians
deny that humans are warming the planet. Likewise
the economics do not change because politicians find
them ideologically or politically inconvenient.A compelling case for a carbon tax
Regulatory and other approaches cost much more for the same environmental benefits.
With the death of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings
(D-Md.), we are again reminded that no matter what
we do in life, how we behave and how the world fares
around us, there is this one certainty, this singular
truth that affects us all: Our time on this Earth is
limited. How do we spend our time? Is it noble to
focus our lives on self-promotion? How about
gathering wealth? Our children and spouses appre-
ciate the luxuries that wealth buys, so it must be our
priority, right? We are not impervious to any of these
false gods. We boast and lie for attention, we invest
money and time in the defense of our actions, and
we put financial gain ahead of charity and empathy.
But the best among us find time to examine their
lives and the lives around them. They question
authority on the basis of morality, ethics and truth.
They walk in other people’s shoes. They not only give
to charity but also inspire others to do the same.Only then can they reflect on a life of virtue. Only
then can they die with dignity.
Mr. Cummings should be remembered not as
someone who enrolled in public service to pursue a
mantle of influence or to fix the nation’s problems
but rather to establish a facility for seeking truth
and building a society of justice and liberty. May his
memory be a blessing, and may it remind us of what
truly matters not just in the end but every day of our
lives.
Dan Blitz, GaithersburgThe lessons of Mr. Cummings
ABCDE
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
O
N MOST days, José Daniel Ferrer is hard to
miss in Cuba. He’s often voicing criticism of
the government on Facebook and Twitter,
urging people to lose their fear of the
authorities and speak up for their rights. Mr. Ferrer
is leader of Cuba’s most active opposition group, the
Patriotic Union of Cuba, or UNPACU, based in
Santiago de Cuba. He has been through a lot,
including years in prison, and yet never ceased being
an advocate for democracy.
Until now. Mr. Ferrer’s voice has not been heard
since Oct. 1, when he and others in his group were
arrested without charge. Two were released, but
Mr. Ferrer and several others have all but disap-
peared. Although in recent years the Cuban political
police have periodically detained Mr. Ferrer for a
few days at a time, this stretch is longer and
Mr. Ferrer has been held incommunicado. His
family is demanding that the authorities provide
proof that he is alive, explain the grounds for his
arrest and permit visits. Some activists in his grouphave told independent Cuban journalists at the
news site 14ymedio.com that he is being framed on a
criminal charge of carrying out an assault that didn’t
happen.
It should be no mystery why he was arrested: to
silence him. UNPACU has proved to be resilient and
Mr. Ferrer quite steadfast in speaking out against
the Cuban police state. He was among the 75 activ-
ists imprisoned in the “Black Spring” of 2003. He
and about 50 others were supporters of the Varela
Project, a citizen initiative for democracy champi-
oned by Oswaldo Payá, who was later killed in a
suspicious car wreck.
Cuba’s rulers have tried mightily to suppress
voices such as Mr. Ferrer but can’t silence them
entirely. Although the regime inspires fear, dissent
still bubbles up, and Cubans have lately been eager
to take advantage of slightly improved mobile
Internet connectivity to share complaints about
everyday hardships, including fuel shortages and
power blackouts caused by the drop-off of oilimports from Venezuela.
On Oct. 7, a group of 19 independent Cuban news
outlets, many of them digital news sites, published a
rare and revealing open declaration protesting
attacks on journalists working in the country, saying
in recent months there had been “a noticeable
increase” in assaults and pressure on the unofficial
and non-state press, including arbitrary arrests,
interrogations, psychological intimidation, house
searches, prohibitions on leaving the country, sexual
harassment and defamation, among other things, all
“part of a systematic campaign by the Cuban
government to silence independent journalists.” The
journalists demanded the repeal of laws that restrict
freedom of expression and insisted that independ-
ent journalism be legalized. The declaration was a
gutsy and laudable moment of speaking out without
fear, just the approach Mr. Ferrer had urged.
Now he must be freed. Cuba’s communists ought
to realize by now that they cannot jail free speech, no
matter how hard and often they try.In Cuba, a resilient voice is silenced
José Daniel Ferrer was seized by the authorities and has not been heard from.
P
UBLIC COMMENT processes are supposed
to promote government of the people, by the
people and for the people. So what happens
when the people aren’t who they say they
are? BuzzFeed reports that political operatives are
engaging in campaigns of impersonation to co-opt
opportunities for everyday Americans to tell officials
and lawmakers what they think of pending policies.
The investigation is the latest development in a
long-simmering story about the Federal Communi-
cations Commission’s decision to scrap net neutrali-
ty strictures. The agency drew 22 million submis-
sions on the subject, a sky-high yield that looked on
the surface like democracy at its digitally enhanced
best. The only problem? Many of those comments
came from addresses that did not actually exist.
Others were supposedly submitted by Mickey Mouse
and more of pop culture’s finest. Most startling,
others still seemed to come from beyond the grave —
attached to names of the deceased.
Nearly 8 million comments in support of net
neutrality appeared to have been created at
FakeMailGenerator.com. Yet the most sophisticated
campaign, and the most insidious, was by all
indications carried out by at least two strategy firms
working on behalf of a broadband industry group.
These firms misappropriated names and other
personal information to upload a tsunami of com-
ments decrying the now-defunct Obama-era stric-
tures, and they exploited data stolen from tens of
millions of Americans in a huge 2016 hack to do it.
The tactics aren’t limited to the federal level. The
same firms provoked suspicion in Texas and South
Carolina when legislators found themselves inun-
dated with formulaic citizen feedback. In Texas, a
lawmaker received a constituent message ostensibly
from his predecessor who, when contacted, said he
had never sent a thing. In South Carolina, lawmak-
ers could not find a single constituent who had
actually sent the correspondence in question. And
that’s only the abuse we know about.
The story is a classic case of good intentions andnew technology combining to create trouble. The
public comment process dates from 1946 — long,
long before the Internet era. Agencies realized it
wasn’t built for Web-wide engagement, and they
tried to catch up. But regulations are lacking from
the federal level to prevent the malicious from
misusing the system. Fixing that might involve
narrow legal updates letting investigators go after
comments entered en masse using stolen identities.
It will also involve technical ones to make data moretransparent and mandate quality control.
The situation today, though, is untenable. Govern-
ments pay attention to comments despite their
corruption or ignore them because they have be-
come too polluted to trust. Either way, real citizens
who cared enough to speak up are disregarded. “It
poisoned the well,” a South Carolinian representa-
tive told BuzzFeed. “Now when you get an email...
you think, ‘Is this fake advocacy or someone who
really needs something?’ ”Poisoning the well
In government by the people,
what if the people aren’t
who they say they are?ABCDE
FREDERICK J. RYAN JR., Publisher and Chief Executive Officer
News pages: Editorial and opinion pages:
MARTIN BARON FRED HIATT
Executive Editor Editorial Page Editor
CAMERON BARR JACKSON DIEHL
Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor
EMILIO GARCIA-RUIZ RUTH MARCUS
Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor
TRACY GRANT JO-ANN ARMAO
Managing Editor Associate Editorial Page Editor
SCOTT VANCE
Deputy Managing Editor
BARBARA VOBEJDA
Deputy Managing Editor
Vice Presidents:
JAMES W. COLEY JR. ..................................................................................... Production
L. WAYNE CONNELL..........................................................................Human Resources
KATE M. DAVEY .................................................................................. Revenue Strategy
ELIZABETH H. DIAZ ................................................. Audience Development & Insights
GREGG J. FERNANDES........................................................Customer Care & Logistics
STEPHEN P. GIBSON...................................................................Finance & Operations
SCOT GILLESPIE .......................................................................................... Engineering
KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY...................................................Communications & Events
JOHN B. KENNEDY.................................................................General Counsel & Labor
MIKI TOLIVER KING........................................................................................Marketing
KAT DOWNS MULDER........................................................................Product & Design
SHAILESH PRAKASH...............................Digital Product Development & Engineering
JOY ROBINS ........................................................................................... Client SolutionsThe Washington Post
1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-Bravo to David Krucoff, who was profiled in the
Oct. 14 Metro article “Aspiring D.C. delegate wants
the city to be Maryland’s 24th county.” Mr. Krucoff
wants the District to join Maryland instead of
becoming a state. What a great idea! Talk about
win-win. It solves the D.C. representation problem
and benefits Maryland. In fact, it would lead to an
additional Maryland representative in the next
congressional reapportionment.
Why this wonderful idea “lacks the support of key
players” is a mystery. As the article pointed out, D.C.
statehood will never happen, and a new Maryland
county is the only realistic alternative. Besides, there
is ample (and successful) precedent in Northern
Virginia.
Rodney Brooks, Silver SpringA win-win without statehood
The Oct. 16 editorial “Sickness that does not have
to be” is a welcome focus highlighting a treatable
communicable disease problem that unfortunately
has been around a long time in a frequently
neglected fashion.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Communicable Dis-
ease Center trained epidemiologists to work nation-
wide with state and local governments to identify
and treat infected or suspected venereal disease
carriers and break the cycle of infection. Epidemiol-
ogy investigations, antibiotics and identification of
the carriers were very effective. But neglect has
caused the diseases to again thrive and spread.
We should make every effort to routinely test
pregnant women and suspected carriers and identi-
fy infected carriers to use the U.S. public health
infrastructure. Syphilis in its late stages left untreat-
ed can cause serious systematic neurological infec-
tion, death or disability. Gonorrhea and chlamydia
can create serious medical complications if left
untreated.
Gerald A. Fill, Alexandria
The writer is a former field investigator for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.An Oct. 16 editorial on sexually transmitted
infections cited underfunded health departments,
mental health, substance use, impermanent housing
and other social determinants of health and health-
care access barriers as key reasons for the recent
sharp rise in STIs. And while gonorrhea, syphilis,
chlamydia and other STIs do present serious risk
factors for the transmission of HIV, we should
consider how to leverage our prevention successes
in HIV as a way to address the rise in STIs.
As pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP, a one-pill-
a-day HIV prevention) uptake continues to increase
in some of the traditional HIV/AIDS epicenters,
we’re seeing new cases of HIV come down, in some
places significantly. Rather than look at PrEP as a
license to engage in risky sex behaviors, we can use
this growing HIV prevention infrastructure to meet
at-risk individuals where they are with comprehen-
sive and inclusive sexual health counseling, in-
creased STI screening, family planning and repro-
ductive health needs, and access to prevention, care
and treatment that is free of judgment and stigma.
HIV specialists are doing this on the front lines.
Now is the time to expand those lessons to care
providers in all settings throughout the country.
Bruce J. Packett II, Washington
The writer is executive director of
the American Academy of HIV Medicine.STIs can’t be neglected
In his Oct. 17 Thursday Opinion essay, “Rightsiz-
ing the National Security Council,” Robert C. O’Brien
wrote, “We decimated the Islamic State as a military
force.” That’s it. No mention of how the Kurds (whom
President Trump recently abandoned and fed to the
Turkish wolves) played a major role in “decimating”
the Islamic State. This came at a horrendous cost in
lives lost and injured for the Kurds.
I will give Mr. O’Brien the benefit of the doubt by
saying he “just forgot” to mention how the Islamic
State might not have been decimated had it not been
for the brave and costly efforts of the Kurds. Either
that or he was directed not to include it in his op-ed.
Joel Kawer, GaithersburgI had a laugh-out-loud moment while reading
Robert C. O’Brien’s Oct. 17 Thursday Opinion essay.
Mr. O’Brien explained that he is downsizing the NSC
staff “to assist the president as he continues to
execute his foreign policy vision for the country.”
What a surprise: President Trump has a foreign
policy vision! Does he seek advice from or listen to
NSC members?
This month, Mr. Trump had a disastrous phone
call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
abandoned our Kurdish allies, allowed Turkey to
partner with Russia to control territory we were
protecting, and totally upset the geostrategic land-
scape of the Middle East in favor of Syria, Iran and
Russia. What was the role of the NSC in this
decision?
To save time and money, Mr. O’Brien’s downsizing
project can further reduce the NSC to one person:
Mr. Trump, who, with his infinite wisdom and
brilliant mind, will manage foreign affairs on his
own.
Oh, perhaps instead of laughing, I should cry.
Mary Emilie Combs, North BethesdaMissing from recently appointed national secu-
rity adviser Robert C. O’Brien’s otherwise-
commendable remarks about how he intends to
streamline President Trump’s National Security
Council was his failure to say one word about what
the NSC’s greatest failing has been during
Mr. Trump’s tenure: The president doesn’t pay
attention to it.
The president has no use for the council’s inter-
agency process. He considers his “gut instincts”
superior to NSC briefing papers, policy options,
deliberations and warnings of future consequences.
To borrow from Mr. O’Brien’s reference to “the
president’s vision for a lean, efficient government,”
Mr. Trump has already found one in the national
security realm: himself.
Karl F. Inderfurth, McLean
The writer served on the National Security Council
staff in the Carter administration and
was co-editor of “Fateful Decisions: Inside
the National Security Council.”Mr. Trump’s council of one
EDITORIALSTOM TOLESMay his memory remind us
of what truly matters.
Letters and Local Opinions: [email protected]
Op-eds: [email protected]