Raw LLM Responses

[The costs of mitigating are trivial compared to the alternatives](http://www.aguanomics.com/2017/05/so-what-would-carbon-tax-really-cost.html). The consensus among [scientists](http://bush.tamu.edu/istpp/scholarship/journals/ClimateScientistsPerspectives_ClimaticChange.pdf) and [economists](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf) on [carbon pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price)^§ to mitigate climate change is similar to [the consensus among climatologists](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price [upstream](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323611604578396401965799658) where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend [offsets any regressive effects of the tax](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9152.pdf) (in fact, [~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648#s7)) and allows for a higher carbon price (which [is what matters for climate mitigation](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X)) because [the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise](http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/Is-the-Public-Willing-to-Pay-to-Help-Fix-Climate-Change-.aspx). Enacting a [border tax](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2026879) would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also [incentivize those countries](http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/205761) to enact their own. [Conservative estimates](http://rdcu.be/cLYO) are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, [starting about now](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf). In contrast, carbon taxes may actually *boos