[mvanaltvorst]

Take the money, pile it all up and directly give it back to the citizens, where every citizen gets the same amount of money. Effect: households will have the same amount of money on average, but people will be nudged to substitute their carbon-intensive lifestyle by greener alternatives. (or, in economic terms, there is no income effect, only a substitution effect).

You're also indirectly taking money from big corporations and putting it into the pockets of citizens, which has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of stimulating the economy.

[astrange]

Doesn’t this motivate people to not reduce total carbon use? It would lower the dividend unless the green energy is cheap enough to balance it out.

And if the green energy is that cheap (which actually it seems like it is) then we don’t need the dividend.

Btw, carbon emissions in the US at least typically aren’t done by “corporations” but rather poor land use decisions causing long commutes and things like that. Buying gas from a corporation may cause them to dig it out of the ground, but you’re the one who told them to do it.

The “climate change is caused by 100 corporations” thing is especially wrong since it comes from a misreading of a list of emitters that has things like Saudi Aramco and “the Chinese government” as corporations.