Carbon Dividend by Carbon Dividend team
The fossil fuel tax revenues that today put government in conflict of interest, divided equally among the citizens, would end this conflict.
Putting a price on carbon emissions will motivate those paying it to emit less, and to empower others to emit less.
The carbon price will motivate those receiving it to hinder fossil fuel conservation and substitution. This is especially harmful when the recipients are members of a civil service establishment, for they have the power to make rules, and interpret rules, that determine how, and whether, measures that tend to reduce fossil fuel use will be encouraged -- or allowed.
Category of the action
Mitigation - Helping U.S. enact carbon price legislation
What actions do you propose?
Who will take these actions?
The US Congress.
Where will these actions be taken?
In the United States.
How much will emissions be reduced or sequestered vs. business as usual levels?
What are other key benefits?
The usual benefits of a progressive tax break: more money in the hands of people who will spend it.
What are the proposal’s costs?
A slight reduction in government income.
As soon as possible.
Dr. James Hansen's "Fee and Dividend" proposal.
It is less than optimal because it leads with the word "Fee", which listeners will understand is synonymous in this context with "Tax".
It could be slightly improved by reordering the words ("Dividend and Fee"). This might dispel the impression that the dividend is an afterthought, subject to deferral or to being outright forgotten once the additional fee is in place.
But there is no reason for any additional fee at all. Carbon fees are already a substantial part of government incomes. This is a large part of the problem, indeed, it may be the whole of it.