The use of carbon pricing income in the United States is the key to solving regional differences.
On April 5, 2016, the World Resources Institute (WRI) released a report entitled "carbon pricing: ensuring equity" (Putting a Price on Carbon: Ensuring Equity) that income from carbon pricing policies can be used to address regional disparities and ensure that unfair burdens do not affect poor households. Compared with other alternatives, policy designers can allocate a small portion of carbon pricing income specifically to low-income households and coal mining communities to ensure that these groups receive more income.
The report points out that coal workers have been the backbone of the national economy over the past few decades, but with the gradual decline of the coal industry, countries need to draw very different development prospects. As one of a series of WRI studies on US carbon pricing, the report describes the different effects of US carbon pricing policies on different households and points out that the most important factor determining the difference in carbon pricing is how policy makers use carbon pricing income.
1? The impact of carbon pricing policy
The researchers divided the impact of carbon pricing policy into the following four parts: 1 the impact on household spending. Carbon prices affect household spending by affecting the prices of carbon-intensive energy products and services such as electricity, oil and household heating, as well as goods and services that are energy-intensive in the manufacturing process. (2) the influence on family income. Household wage income and investment income depend on the performance of all companies throughout the economy. Carbon prices affect the input costs of carbon-intensive companies, as well as their market share and competitors, thus affecting household incomes. (3) the impact of the use of carbon pricing income on households. Carbon pricing generates income, which can be used for different purposes, including providing household tax rebates, investing in clean energy, reducing the federal deficit, addressing regional differences, or subsidizing households that cannot pay for carbon prices. different ways of income use determine the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. (4) Environmental benefit. Carbon prices will reduce climate change and local air pollution, thereby improving health and economic income, and there are small regional differences in these environmental benefits.
As consumers, workers, business owners, shareholders, taxpayers, beneficiaries of government welfare and community residents and other different roles, most families will basically be affected by the above four aspects. The different degree of impact of carbon pricing on a particular household depends on the characteristics of the family and the details of policy formulation. The empirical analysis of the impact of carbon pricing on the income distribution of all households in the United States (including only the impact of carbon prices and income use, without environmental benefits) is as follows: 1 as consumers, households that are most dependent on carbon-intensive energy (especially electricity) are the most affected by carbon prices. The areas most dependent on coal are the most affected, including communities in the southeastern, Midwestern, Great Plains and western mountains of the United States. (2) carbon price has little impact on the regional difference of household income, but without considering the use of income, workers in the coal industry will bear a disproportionate burden. (3) the increase in expenditure of low-income households is more obvious because of the larger proportion of energy-intensive products in their consumption structure. (4) the income of high-income households has declined more significantly, because their income is more dependent on capital income, which is more easily affected by carbon prices than wage income and government transfer expenditure. (5) the use of carbon pricing income is the most important factor affecting the distribution effect of policy.
The report notes that the impact of carbon pricing policies between different regions and socio-economic groups depends on decision makers. Stronger carbon prices bring in billions of dollars a year, and different ways of using income will lead to different distribution consequences. Using all carbon pricing income equally for household tax rebates will benefit low-income and poor families more, while using all income to reduce taxes on capital income will benefit higher-income households and richer and more capital-intensive areas. In reality, policy makers may use carbon pricing income in different ways for different goals. Therefore, carbon pricing policies are not necessarily regressive or progressive, nor will they bring benefits or disadvantages to some regions.
2? Recommendations on carbon pricing policies to ensure fairness
To ensure policy fairness, policy makers need to consider not only the overall or average impact of carbon pricing on different regions and socio-economic sectors, but also on a smaller range of vulnerable household groups. Research shows that two types of vulnerable groups are particularly in need of additional support. The first is the large number of low-income families who may not be able to afford any increase in spending, so carbon pricing should ensure that these households do not become poorer. The second category is the coal industry workers and their surrounding communities. The number of jobs in the coal industry has declined rapidly since 2008, and it is difficult for coal workers to find new jobs, resulting in serious economic difficulties in their rural communities. Carbon prices will further promote the transformation away from coal power, thus exacerbating the problems already faced by the communities where workers in the coal industry are working. But carbon pricing also creates plenty of opportunities to help these troubled communities by expanding health benefits, providing job search assistance and vocational training, supporting community development and infrastructure projects, and providing direct financial assistance.
Further study of specific policy proposals shows that fair carbon pricing policies require the distribution of income to other workers and households. These include industry workers who are extremely vulnerable to international competition, or residents living in areas that rely heavily on coal-fired power generation. In addition, the vast majority of carbon pricing revenue can be used for other purposes.
3? Advantages of implementing carbon pricing policy in the United States
The United States has pledged to cut economy-wide carbon emissions by 26%, 28% and 80%, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2025 and 2050, respectively. In the absence of a carbon pricing policy, we need to rely on other policies to achieve these goals. Other alternative policies will also have a distribution effect, but in contrast, carbon pricing policy will bring a lot of revenue to the government to alleviate the distribution problem, which is a key advantage of carbon pricing.
The report points out that the above optimistic conclusions are very different from many public opinions about the distribution effects of carbon pricing, which usually pay too much attention to energy prices. When considering carbon pricing as a whole, carbon pricing can also not destroy specific regions or specific socio-economic groups of the country. Policy makers can design a fair carbon pricing policy to reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner while addressing regional differences and protecting vulnerable households and workers in the country.
About the Creator
“Are You Dead?”: A New App Reflects the Loneliness of Young Chinese Living Alone
In China’s rapidly changing cities, living alone is no longer unusual—especially among young adults pursuing education, careers, and independence. But as solo living increases, so do concerns about isolation, safety, and what happens when no one is around to check in. Against this backdrop, a new app with a blunt, unsettling question—“Are you dead?”—has captured public attention and ignited debate. Despite its shocking name, the app is not designed to provoke fear. Instead, it aims to address a practical and emotional gap in modern urban life: how to ensure the well-being of people who live alone, and how technology is stepping in where traditional community networks have weakened. The Rise of Solo Living in China China has witnessed a dramatic shift in household structures over the past two decades. Urbanization, delayed marriage, rising housing costs, and changing cultural values have contributed to a growing number of single-person households, particularly among people in their 20s and 30s. For many young Chinese professionals, living alone represents freedom and self-reliance. It allows flexibility, privacy, and independence from family expectations. Yet this independence often comes with trade-offs: fewer daily social interactions, weaker neighborhood ties, and limited support in emergencies. In megacities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen, it is increasingly common for neighbors not to know each other at all. In this environment, concerns about what happens if someone becomes ill, injured, or simply disappears from daily routines have become more pronounced. What the App Actually Does Despite its provocative name, the app’s purpose is surprisingly simple. It functions as a digital check-in system. Users set regular times to confirm they are okay—by tapping a notification or completing a brief check-in. If the user fails to respond after a certain period, the app automatically alerts designated contacts, such as friends, family members, or emergency responders. The stark question, “Are you dead?”, is intentionally designed to grab attention and prompt action. Developers argue that softer language is often ignored, while blunt phrasing cuts through digital noise and encourages consistent use. In essence, the app acts as a safety net, especially for people who live alone and may not have daily contact with others. Why Young People Are Downloading It The app’s popularity reflects deeper anxieties among young adults navigating modern life. Many users say they downloaded it not because they fear the worst every day, but because it provides peace of mind—both for themselves and for loved ones. For parents living far from their children, the app offers reassurance without constant phone calls. For users, it creates a sense of being quietly watched over, without sacrificing independence. Some users have also described the app as a form of emotional comfort. Even a routine notification can feel like a reminder that someone, somewhere, would notice if they vanished from daily life. A Name That Sparked Debate The app’s name has been its most controversial feature. Critics argue that the phrase “Are you dead?” is unnecessarily harsh and reflects a growing desensitization in digital culture. Others worry that such language could amplify anxiety rather than reduce it. Supporters, however, see the name as a reflection of reality rather than a provocation. In densely populated cities where people can go unnoticed for days or weeks, the question is uncomfortable—but relevant. They argue that avoiding blunt language does not eliminate the underlying problem of isolation. The debate highlights a broader tension in tech design: Should apps prioritize emotional sensitivity, or practical effectiveness—even if it makes people uncomfortable? Technology Filling a Social Gap The rise of this app points to a larger issue: technology increasingly compensates for weakened social structures. In the past, extended families, close-knit neighborhoods, and workplace communities naturally checked in on individuals. Today, those informal safety nets are often absent. Apps like this one are not just tools; they are symptoms of a society where digital solutions are replacing human presence. While convenient, this raises questions about whether technology is addressing the root causes of loneliness—or simply managing its consequences. Still, for many users, the app is not a replacement for relationships, but a supplement to modern life realities. Living Alone Does Not Mean Wanting to Be Alone An important takeaway from the app’s success is that living alone is not the same as wanting isolation. Many young Chinese adults value independence but still crave connection, security, and acknowledgment. The app’s routine check-ins, though minimal, provide a structured moment of contact. In a fast-paced, high-pressure environment, even small gestures of recognition can matter. This trend also reflects changing attitudes toward mental well-being and personal safety. Younger generations are more open to discussing vulnerability and using tools that previous generations might have dismissed. What This Says About Modern Urban Life The popularity of an app that asks such a stark question speaks volumes about the realities of contemporary urban living—not just in China, but globally. As cities grow larger and lives become more individualized, people are searching for new ways to ensure they are seen, remembered, and protected. The app’s success suggests that people are willing to engage with uncomfortable ideas if they address real needs. It also underscores the importance of designing technology that is honest about modern challenges, rather than masking them with euphemisms. Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call, Not a Warning While the phrase “Are you dead?” may sound alarming, the app behind it is less about fear and more about care. It reflects a generation navigating independence in a world where traditional support systems no longer function as they once did. Rather than signaling a morbid obsession, the app serves as a quiet reminder of something deeply human: the need to be noticed. In that sense, its blunt question is not about death at all—but about presence, connection, and the reassurance that someone would check if you were gone. As solo living continues to rise, tools like this app may become less shocking and more commonplace—symbols of how society adapts to changing ways of life in the digital age.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.