The gap between actual carbon prices and those required to achieve ambitious climate change mitigation could be closed by enhancing the public acceptability of carbon pricing through the appropriate use of the revenues raised. In this Perspective, we synthesize findings regarding the optimal use of carbon revenues from traditional economic analyses, and studies in behavioral and political science focused on public acceptability. We then compare real-world carbon pricing regimes with theoretical insights on distributional fairness, revenue salience, political trust, and policy stability. We argue that traditional economic lessons on efficiency and equity are subsidiary to the primary challenge of garnering greater political acceptability and make recommendations for enhancing political support through appropriate revenue uses under different economic and political circumstances.

The nexus of COVID-19 and climate change has so far brought attention to short-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, public health responses, and clean recovery stimulus packages. We take a more holistic approach, making five broad comparisons between the crises with five associated lessons for climate change mitigation policy. First, delay is costly. Second, policy design must overcome biases to human judgment. Third, inequality can be exacerbated without timely action. Fourth, global problems require multiple forms of international cooperation. Fifth, transparency of normative positions is needed to navigate value judgments at the science-policy interface. Learning from policy challenges during the COVID-19 crisis could enhance efforts to reduce GHG emissions and prepare humanity for future crises.

Existing estimates of optimal climate policy ignore the possibility that carbon tax revenues could be used in a progressive way; model results therefore typically imply that near-term climate action comes at some cost to the poor. Using the Nested Inequalities Climate Economy (NICE) model, we show that an equal per capita refund of carbon tax revenues implies that achieving a 2°C target can pay large and immediate dividends for improving well-being, reducing inequality and alleviating poverty. In an optimal policy calculation that weighs the benefits against the costs of mitigation, the recommended policy is characterized by aggressive near-term climate action followed by a slower climb towards full decarbonization; this pattern-which is driven by a carbon revenue Laffer curve-prevents runaway warming while also preserving tax revenues for redistribution. Accounting for these dynamics corrects a longstanding bias against strong immediate climate action in the optimal policy literature.

A major obstacle for introducing carbon pricing are its distributional implications: climate policy is believed to be regressive. We illuminate the role of carbon-intensive subsistence consumption for the prospect of making carbon pricing progressive. The distributional impacts of a carbon tax reform depend on the revenue recycling options: we prove that lump-sum transfers proportional to income and linear income tax cuts make the reform regressive and that this is due only to subsistence consumption. By contrast, returning the revenue as uniform lump-sum transfers renders the carbon tax reform progressive.JEL classification: D3, D60, E62, H22, H23