James Hansen explains that if all of the money collected for carbon fees is returned to the public, going green with a fossil fuel fee-and-dividend would actually stimulate the economy. It's so much better than a carbon tax!
Citizens Climate Lobby just released a study by the non-partisan organization Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI)…
Their comprehensive analysis of the impacts of a carbon fee-and-dividend in the United States, with 100% revenue distribution of the money to the public in equal shares as direct payments.
Contrary to the wails of fossil fuel-industry kingpins, the fossil fuel fee-and-dividend stimulates the economy, modernizes infrastructure and saves 13,000 lives per year via improved air quality.
Why do these results differ from previous studies concluding that a carbon tax would be costly? The main reason is that other studies do not have 100% recycling of funds to the public; instead part of the money is taken as a tax, to increase the size of government. Also other studies do not use such an aggressive rate of increase of the carbon fee and they do not include the level of detail as in the REMI study. A revenue-neutral fee-and-dividend is completely different from a carbon tax, and their impacts on the economy are as different as night and day. [emphasis mine]