Good article

I actually have no problem with Cap-n-trade or an overt Carbon tax with one caveat:

None of the proceeds must go to government. All must be refunded proportionately (non-progressively) to taxpayers. So, the people who pay 95% of taxes would receive 95% of the redistributed revenues.

What do you think the chances are that this will happen? If the goal is to preserve the planet, clearly the policies are about limiting "bad" behavior, not increasing revenue. More like a fine right? If so, government doesn't need the money; the end that justifies the means is that climate catastrophe is averted, correct? If Krugman's arguments are to be believed then, we should have no problem returning the "fines" the taxpayers, should we?

Right. When's the last time you saw the Government give up a chance to take more of your money? And, believe me, you will end up paying more as the "cost" of carbon gets redistributed up and down the wholesale distribution chain. Why should we then, receive refunds for the increased costs? If Krugman and his colleagues are right, over time the fines received will decline to zero as we tax the bad behavior out of existence. And, through the miracle of the "free market" green energy sources will emerge to take their place, thus sayeth the chosen one. So imagine this utopian existence: in 20 years, the cost to heat your home via coal-fired electricity will rise to $1000.00 per month. But, that'll be OK, because using solar and wind, you'll be able to heat your home for only $900.00 per month! That's green energy making a difference folks.

in reference to: Magazine Preview - Climate Change - Building a Green Economy - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)