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
Copy the Story LinkSend questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.