Economic modelling says that a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the US would create jobs and economic growth, and increase the income of working people, as well as accelerating the reduction in CO₂ emissions.

The crucial point is that the tax increases every year, and investors know that it will increase every year. This means that the pressure on investors to avoid future fossil fuel use is very strong.

The model for this study was revenue-neutral, but I don't think that a carbon tax has to be revenue-neutral. Perhaps the state should keep some of the money to spend on useful things such as infrastructure; that too puts the money back into circulation.