We are already Green by Krugman's method

So New York City is finally imposing a congestion tax for lower Manhattan. 

This has long been an obviously good idea. Asking why it's finally happening now is, I'd argue, relevant to the national debate over some kind of Green New Deal. In fact, think of NYC as a mini-GND experiment 1/7:02 AM - 3 Apr 2019The standard economist position on environmental issues, incl climate is, hey, it's a negative externality, so put a price on it via emissions taxes or equivalent -- full stop. But this is both dubious economics and bad political economy 2/

So you need concrete payoffs to mobilized groups to make externality taxes fly. Which brings me to NYC: the congestion charge revenues are supposed to help fix the subways – an issue people care about passionately 7/To some extent subway investment is complement to initial goal: better service would mean fewer people using vehicles. But it's also a desirable and politically salient goal in its own right – which helps the political economy a lot 8/Which brings me back to Green New Deal. The GND that eventually emerges may well include carbon taxes, but only along with lots of other stuff – some of it environmentally relevant investment, some stuff less relevant to climate 9/

Krugman is faking it with a bunch of twitters to insure that 'Green' government can always pay off their special people.  Note the exception in bold , 'concrete payoffs' for his special groups.

Government inflation adjustments and contract guarantees already take fossil taxes and give them to special government goodies. Like in California, we tax poor people driving cars, then give the money to union members so they can drive cars without the carbon tax.  This is exactly Krugman's motive, use carbon taxes to subsidize the precious government union. He is doing this because Delong and bunch of professors want some bozo theory that lets them continue getting carbon subsidizes on the government job, sick actually, fraudulent.