Americans are willing to pay $177 a year to avoid climate change
And they want the money spent on clean energy.
Despite their relatively rarity in the real world, carbon taxes are the subject of endless hype and discussion in the climate-policy world.
That hype was reinvigorated last year with the introduction of a carbon tax proposal from the Climate Leadership Council, a bipartisan group that boasts several prominent (retired) Republicans among its founding members, including James Baker and George Schultz, along with a number of fossil fuel companies.
Though it didnt go anywhere if youve checked in on Congress lately, you will understand why the CLC proposal has taken on a kind of elevated status in Washington, DC. It is now viewed as the model of what a bipartisan carbon tax should look like, should such a thing should ever become politically viable. (Weirder things have happened.)
But hang on. The CLC pitches its proposal on the premise that it will appeal to the broadest possible swathe of the public, across partisan lines. Is that true? Does it actually line up with public preferences?
Turns out, maybe not.
Designing a carbon tax requires answering two core policy questions. First, how much money should it raise? And second, how should the money be spent?
Much more:
https://inivos11.blogspot.com/2018/08/americans-are-willing-to-pay-177-year.html