Brian Myers (“Carbon illusion," May 5) brings up a worthwhile question about how putting a fee on pollution like carbon dioxide while at the same time returning the proceeds of that fee would lead to reduced pollution. I’m not an economist, but I can explain it based on analyses by the many economists beginning to support this equitable and apparently effective approach at limiting our looming common tragedy.
Putting a flat fee on pollution provides an economic disincentive to pollute. Mr. Myers’ incorrect assumption is that the fee will be returned based on the amount each polluter produces. The fee would be returned equally to each citizen similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund program and could be implemented similarly to the Bush administration’s economic stimulus checks.
Equal dispersal of the collected fees would result in most recipients receiving more dividend than they contributed. Not scaling the dividend directly to the consumers’ pollution will provide an economic disincentive on the polluting practices, therefore driving investment and innovation towards cleaner technologies not subject to the fee.
Salt Lake City
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet
- School fees: Is Utah really family friendly?
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- Letter: Society puzzles
- 20 of the most influential and innovative...
- Equality in family life does not mean sameness
- Jay Evensen: Utahns support Common Core, even...
- Michael Gerson: State of Israel: History...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb:... 82
- Letter: Police brutality 62
- School fees: Is Utah really family... 48
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- Richard Davis: The State Board can do... 42
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 39
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 35
- Letter: Society puzzles 32