I am using this paper as an analytical writing sample for a job, can you make it better?

Austin Belman
ECON 415
Literature review of Greg Mankiw's Smart Taxes: An Open Invitation to Join the Pigou Club
Mankiw's argument in favor of carbon or gasoline taxes is based on the idea that humans emit carbon into the atmosphere which is a negative externality,  if no policy is enacted,  people will release too much of it. Mankiw argues Pigovian taxation on energy-related products is the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Giving people an incentive to reduce their carbon footprint while generating revenue for the government to lower other taxes.
Mankiw argues against two popular proposals to limit carbon emissions: CAFÉ standards, and cap-and-trade policies. Basically, the CAFÉ standards are lawmakers requiring automakers to increase the fuel-efficient cars they sell to the public. One of the problems with that is, the public perceives this as good because they are passing the cost along to the automakers, but in actuality, the CAFÉ standard acts like a tax, increasing the cost for consumers in the form of higher car prices. Another point Mankiw makes is that enhancing fuel efficiency does not change other factors that cause increased energy consumption, such as how often they drive and the distance, rather greater fuel efficiency encourages more driving, which offsets the carbon benefit and naturally increases the other problems such as accidents, road congestion, and pollution. 
Mankiw argues against cap-and-trade policies for carbon emissions, which would set a limit and allow for allowances to be bought and sold in the marketplace, based simply on the principle that power companies and carbon emitters would reap all the revenue from the freedom to use or sale of allowances at market prices. This would cause the price of energy to rise as they would from a carbon tax, but the government would not collect any revenue. 
The brass tax is CAFÉ or cap-and-trade policies are pseudo carbon taxes, are ineffective at lowering energy consumption, and do not allow for the government to collect revenue to reduce other taxes and compensate consumers.
	The public seems to be against carbon taxes because they are ignorant of basic economic principles of good policy, believing the policy will be regressive in its impact, in the sense that the increase in the price of energy would make poor people poorer relatively more than rich ones. The public hears the word "taxes" in carbon taxes and does not want to be taxed anymore, even if it does mean a better society.  
Politicians seem to be against carbon taxes because their core interest is to get reelected, and pitching in their campaign that they are going to tax you is not the best political move. Politicians tell their potential electorates what they are going to give them, and that's what people want to hear. The Democrats want to spend big and regulate, whereas Republicans want to ignore it all together. 
Mankiw addresses the concerns people have for a carbon or gasoline tax. Firstly, he removed the cost of global warming, which was the least costly compared to the others externalities, and focused on the other cost of driving, for those who do not believe in it. Making a point that most of the cost of a carbon or gasoline tax came from mundane externalities: congestion and accidents. Secondly, he addressed the concern of the consumers taking all of the tax burdens by arguing that since the US costumes a quarter of the world’s oil, we are a market power. If we put in place a carbon or gasoline tax, this would lower consumption which would lower price, and in the long run, the tax would be paid by the oil producers. Thirdly, he addresses the government's price protection by suspending taxes on gas when prices rise until prices go back to normal, stating that taxes are already too low, which incentivizes OPEC to take advantage of the US's reduced response to prices by increasing prices even more. Lastly, he dispels the myth that a tax policy will not be a regressive impact, by making the poorer poor, and that revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce other taxes that would distribute the burden making it unchanged.