Barbara Alexander, in her Jan. 22 letter, correctly states that carbon pricing can be regressive (“Don’t hurt poor while helping environment“). But if it is coupled with a carbon dividend returned to American households in regular disbursements, economists agree widely that it is in fact progressive.

Indeed, there are more economists signing the economists’ statement supporting carbon fee and dividend than any other statement (3,640, including 28 Nobel Laureates, as well as four former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, and 15 former chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors.

The U.S. is the only developed nation without a carbon price. Furthermore, climate policy models like EN-ROADS agree with the IPCC that carbon pricing is a “necessary condition” to stabilize the climate.

Returning the fee revenues to all households equally will result in poor households benefiting proportionately more than wealthy ones.

Let’s get beyond the beginning of that thought: carbon pricing alone may be regressive, but a carbon fee returning the revenues directly to the people is a clear win.

Cynthia Stancioff

Chesterville