Sadly, @nytopinion continues to feature writers that don't understand inequality. @JustinHGillis argues we should call it a day and forget carbon taxes. I dissent. Let me explain:
1. Carbon taxes and inequality are inextricably linked
nytimes.com/2018/12/27/opi…
1. Carbon taxes and inequality are inextricably linked
nytimes.com/2018/12/27/opi…
2. Yellow Jacket protests happened because France ignored the distributional problem. Let's face it, Macron is a neolib twerp. Addressing climate will represent one of the largest reorganizations of property rights seen in a long time. Inequality needs to be front and center
3. When writers like @JustinGHarris argue we should rely on regulation instead (which I see as a vital complement rather than a substitute) they fail to tell readers that regulations are MORE regressive. Though they are also less transparent.
4. It's time to ditch neoliberal ideas. I mean it's almost 2019! Using rev from carbon tax to cut payroll taxes is also fairly regressive. Let me model it for you. Payroll tax cut leads to 34% of bottom half better of while 84% of them would be w/ a carbon dividend 
5. If we care about racial equity, and WE SHOULD, then the numbers are even more compelling. Maybe we want to make this popular in rural districts too? Yeah, dividend can do that too.
6. No, carbon taxes aren't a panacea. That's straight BS. But, they should play a critical role in facilitating a just transition away from fossil fuels.
Here's the paper where we model the distributional results: markpaulecon.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/fremst…
fin.
Here's the paper where we model the distributional results: markpaulecon.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/fremst…
fin.
OK, OK, one last comment. This is exactly why we need a #GreenNewDeal. We need to get prices right (carbon tax and repeal FF subsidies), we need to invest on a massive scale, and we need to utilize smart regulation (the article does a good job talking about building regs).
