If you tax CO2 emissions by everyone, and then distribute the money equally among the population, normal people end up with more money afterwards because they tend to emit less CO2 than rich people.

It is also better at reducing emissions, because then less CO2-intensive options become cheaper than the alternative.

And who will be in charge of making sure that happens?

Sounds like you have a great method of shooting down ideas based on something besides their own merits.

It’s just a simple question. If we’re going to add more to the tax burden with the promise that the money then be equally distributed, it’s fair to wonder who would be in charge of making sure it’s actually done correctly.

Your complaint is valid. Politicians should implement the dividend first and then start taxing to align incentives.

Now we’re talking. The best way to sell it will be to call it a tax reduction and start by reducing the tax burden on people with a net worth less than $1B, adjusted for inflation. Then fund the entire program to align incentives by implementing a CO2 tax on those with a net worth of > $1B, inflation adjusted, with no loopholes for deductions. Do that and outlaw lobbying and it would have a chance at working.

I should get a tax credit - for being mostly sequestered carbon ;)