To the editor:

In a letter to the editor, Mr. Burgess wrote about his latest concern, "Heated up over global warming" (Times, Nov. 19), and he warned us to "Beware of House Bill H.R. 2545 — The American Clean Energy and Security Act."

Read what climatologists say in their peer-reviewed scientific periodicals, and you'll plead with the government to raise your taxes.

From Hamilton in Federalist 12: "What will be the consequence, if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province."

No matter how any of us feel about taxes and the amount we pay, no one has created a more flexible tool for supporting governments. The substantive issue is what is done with the monies after they are collected.

A new tax need not cause the skies to fall. If they are partnered with credits for innovations, improved efficiencies, reduced power usage, and ecological benefits, the new taxes could spark new inventions and development of new technologies, which could lead to more employment and better wages.

This is the direction in which to encourage our representatives and senators to move. Badly written tax laws do not invalidate taxation, they simply indicate what greedy interests have been at work to our detriment.

As for the question about glaciations:

Snow Ball Earth has occurred at least twice and atmospheric increases in carbon dioxide from volcanoes have heated up the planet enough to melt most of the ice — and that was without our help.

If we continue to add carbon dioxide, we will create a dystopian nightmare from which we cannot recover.

arthur thomas

Seaview Road, Gloucester