World’s richest 1% pollute more than the poorest two-thirds, Oxfam says by ILikeNeurons Tags:Climate 3 comments This is why [it’s trivially easy to design a carbon tax that falls most on the wealthy](http://www.nber.org/papers/w6546). Simply returning the revenue as an equitable dividend to households would do the trick (though [even that may not be strictly necessary](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive)): -http://www.nber.org/papers/w9152.pdf -http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648#s7 -https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65919/1/MPRA_paper_65919.pdf -https://11bup83sxdss1xze1i3lpol4-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Ummel-Impact-of-CCL-CFD-Policy-v1_4.pdf -https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act -https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155615/1/cesifo1_wp6373.pdf -https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01217-0 The reason is that the [Gini coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) for carbon [is higher than the Gini coefficient for income](http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/2016.Motesharrei.NatSciRev.3.470.pdf). The truth is, [distributional neutrality is easier with a carbon tax than with a general consumption tax](http://www.nber.org/papers/w6546), and [a carbon tax alone may even be progressive](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive). [Price carbon](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)! No one is surprised by this Guess who will bear the burden of new environmental regulations? Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment.
This is why [it’s trivially easy to design a carbon tax that falls most on the wealthy](http://www.nber.org/papers/w6546). Simply returning the revenue as an equitable dividend to households would do the trick (though [even that may not be strictly necessary](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive)): -http://www.nber.org/papers/w9152.pdf -http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648#s7 -https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65919/1/MPRA_paper_65919.pdf -https://11bup83sxdss1xze1i3lpol4-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Ummel-Impact-of-CCL-CFD-Policy-v1_4.pdf -https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act -https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155615/1/cesifo1_wp6373.pdf -https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01217-0 The reason is that the [Gini coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) for carbon [is higher than the Gini coefficient for income](http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/2016.Motesharrei.NatSciRev.3.470.pdf). The truth is, [distributional neutrality is easier with a carbon tax than with a general consumption tax](http://www.nber.org/papers/w6546), and [a carbon tax alone may even be progressive](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive). [Price carbon](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)!
3 comments
This is why [it’s trivially easy to design a carbon tax that falls most on the wealthy](http://www.nber.org/papers/w6546). Simply returning the revenue as an equitable dividend to households would do the trick (though [even that may not be strictly necessary](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive)):
-http://www.nber.org/papers/w9152.pdf
-http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648#s7
-https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65919/1/MPRA_paper_65919.pdf
-https://11bup83sxdss1xze1i3lpol4-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Ummel-Impact-of-CCL-CFD-Policy-v1_4.pdf
-https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act
-https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155615/1/cesifo1_wp6373.pdf
-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01217-0
The reason is that the [Gini coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) for carbon [is higher than the Gini coefficient for income](http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/2016.Motesharrei.NatSciRev.3.470.pdf). The truth is, [distributional neutrality is easier with a carbon tax than with a general consumption tax](http://www.nber.org/papers/w6546), and [a carbon tax alone may even be progressive](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive).
[Price carbon](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)!
No one is surprised by this
Guess who will bear the burden of new environmental regulations?