You seem to be agreeing violently. A carbon fee + dividend takes money away from people who pollute, and gives it to people who don't. That's essentially tax funded emissions reduction - pollute less and the government will give you money. And schedules? The ratchet covers that.

You make a good point about the intellectual property, though. The system will still work without such precautions, though - eventually if polluting became expensive enough, relevant technology would be licensed.

The plan takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It could also be called a "Carbon Tax & Benefit". But instead we use right-friendly words for a very left-friendly plan.

You can take from the rich and give to the poor all day long - but that in itself doesn't reduce emissions. The rich will pay some taxes, or more probably, evade them, offshore stuff etc, and emissions will continue.

The rich can hide money, but it's a lot harder for them to hide consumption, and the carbon tax is a consumption tax.

So what? So they'll pay consumption tax. They're rich, after all, they can afford it.

> that's a plan for financiers and capitalists to trade in the blame for continuing climate change.

Are you confusing fee& dividend with cap&trade?

No, but also kind of yes. That is, if there's a carbon task, the financial system may very well distribute its load among many people (perhaps even indirectly onto regular people through their retirement benefits or what-not). If the plan does not absolute positively require emission reduction, period, then it's not good enough.