I was going to criticize this, but they actually sum up my complaint themselves: > Several planned carbon tax policies have been rejected by the public because

I was going to criticize this, but they actually sum up my complaint themselves: > Several planned carbon tax policies have been rejected by the public because they put a high burden on low-income households.29,30 However, carbon taxes can even decrease poverty and inequality if revenue is redistributed appropriately. Lump-sum recycling of revenues, for instance, is progressive because the amount of money received by low-income households is much higher relative to their income than it is for high-income households.27,31 Why go to the extra trouble of deciding what is luxury and what is not when you can either just return the money raised on a per capita basis or offset currently regressive taxes?