The scorching summer Europe just had in July was just a sort of extreme weather scientists say is becoming more frequent to bring carbon emissions under control.

Maur and more leaders now agree with one thing.

We must go further.

We must strive for more.

A two step approach is needed to reduce CEO took emissions by 2000 and 30 by 50 if not 55%.

The simplest way to do this is through a tax on carbon.

If carbon intensive activities and products become more expensive, will consume less of them and emissions will be lower than other ones.

But there is one big problem.

Higher carbon prices can cause a big hit to the living standards of those already worse off.

That's because poor people often spend a larger share of their incomes than the rich dude on carbon intensive things such as petrol or heating fuel.

When the French government tried to increase Frances carbon tax on transport, fuel and heating oil, the reaction for what became the yellow vest movement was explosive.

So here's the dilemma.

We have to cut carbon emissions, but the way to do so hurts the poorest, it seems we have to choose between climate catastrophe and social disaster.

What we need is a just transition to the low carbon economy.

Some French economists think they know how.

What we had in mind was just to show that it's possible to design a system that makes almost everybody in the forests half of the population a cz well off, better off with the tax that without that was the point.

This is how it would work.

When a driver fills up her car with petrol or diesel, the price she pays is made up of two parts.

There is a cost of supplying the fuel itself.

Then on top of that is tax linked to the CO two admitted well drive.

It is this tax that most economists thinks should go up to encourage people to reduce the use of fossil fuels which contribute to climate change.

While people in cities have the option of public transport if a carbon tax drives up prices at the pump, people in rural areas often have no alternative to taking the car and often don't have the means to change their call for a more fuel efficient.

But what if the tax, instead of disappearing into the government budget, was immediately returned to people in cash?

Such a carbon tax did to be completely to be well received by people and also to be just It should be designed such that the revenues of the tax do not go into budgets.

Public budget, general budget.

But they are kept CE to be redistributed to people to alleviate the reverse effects.

Let's look at how this would work for a typical low income family in France.

Mario lives in a rural area with her husband and two Children.

They're not so well off.

Their income is only in the 2nd 10th off all households, they use oil heating and have a diesel car.

In the scheme proposed by the French economists, millions family would be paying 72 euros a month MAWR in carbon taxes than a typical family in a mid sized town, which has electric heating and no call.

That would be a big hit to their living standards if it was the whole policy.

But because Manu and her husband have low incomes, they would also receive a carbon check worth 125 euros a month Put together, this policy would leave the family with 630 euros Maur every year to spent the province.

That's the Ministry of Finance needs money so that their incentive to to to to put the tax kid the money is very, very strong.

And so it's more there that there is a difficulty.

I understand that, huh?

I think this is not financing tax.

It is just an incentive to adjust missions they don't have to keep.

The hope is that once vulnerable household see that the policy makes him financially better off their opposition to higher carbon taxes will wane away with the climate emergency.