Please answer correct explain plz asap both are questions

Don't answer by pen paper plz

An economist tor the Brookings Institution argues that \"a price on carbon would minimize the cost ot steering economic activity away from the greenhouse gas emissions that threaten the climate." Source: Fred Dews. "10 Things You Should Know about the Carbon Tax." brookings.edu, May 4. 2016. In what sense does a carbon tax put a price on carbon? A. A carbon tax puts a price on carbon by decreasing the private benet of polluting. B. A carbon tax puts a price on carbon by increasing the social cost of polluting, C. A carbon tax puts a price on carbon by decreasing the social benefit of polluting. D. A carbon tax puts a price on carbon by increasing the private cost of polluting. A carbon tax would steer economic actiVity away trom greenhouse gas emissions by making production emitting such pollution more expensive. Why might a carbon tax be less costly to the economy than a command-and-control approach to reducing greenhouse gases? less A carbon tax would require fewer government resources to be implemented. more A carbon tax would prompt those firms that are able to reduce pollution at the lowest cost to do so. A carbon tax would mandate that firms that pollute the most eliminate the most pollution, 53.09\"? A carbon tax would result in rms reducing pollution by equal amounts. Why might a oommand-and-cohtrol approach to pollution control still be more politically popular than a carbon tax? include in your answer a brief discussion of the ditrarence between the normative analysis and positive analysis 01 this policy issue. . A command-and-control approach would not unfairly burden low-income households. which is a positive argument. . A commandrandacontrol approach does not give rms a license to pollute. which is a positive argument. . A command-and-control approach would not directly regulate pollution, which is a normative argument. . A command-and-control approach treats polluting rms equally, which is a normative argument