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
- Doug Robinson: The high cost of coaches
- In our opinion: Fabricated Rolling Stone...
- Letter: Costly benefits
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a conservative
- John Florez: America's strength is its...
- My view: Yesterday’s public education...
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win solution...
- My view: Utah has an export-import problem
- Ralph Hancock: Religious freedom and... 75
- Letter: Wrong wage approach 47
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 39
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 33
- Letter: Intimate caucus system 27