I don’t have time to read this rather long paper this morning, but I agree, it looks interesting, and I will take a look. Thanks for the link.

For a fuller exposition of my own views on carbon taxes, property rights, etc. see here.

(Later): I have read your paper, спасибо. I agree with the idea that ideally, the economic burden of an environmentally harmful activity should not only be borne by the source of the harm, but the monetary value of the harm should be conveyed to the victims. For widespread harms like carbon emissions, transactions costs make a direct party-to-party payment infeasible because of the small amount owed each victim. As a proxy for that, many versions of a carbon tax specify that the revenue collected by the tax be transferred indirectly to the victims, perhaps in the form of some kind of citizen dividend paid annually to reflect the aggregate damage. Of course, the global logic of carbon emissions would suggest that the dividend should be paid not just to victims in the home country, but globally.